Use this section to request clarificationoramendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion.
Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
5.1) My very best wishes is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
5.2) Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
My editing restrictions were based on the findings of fact about my comments during the arbitration. This FoF tells about two issues.
The first issue was my "desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek" (FoF). I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas. Yes, I felt they deserved some support, in part as victims of harassment by the banned user. However, the behavior by VM was clearly problematic, and I do not want to condone anything he did. It was never my intention to enable bad behavior in the project, and I am sorry for exercising a poor judgement in this case. Moreover, these guys are more than capable of defending themselves. Therefore, if the one-sided interaction ban is lifted, I would still refrain from commenting about VM and Piotrus anywhere, just in case, although a legitimate collaboration with them could be beneficial, given the overlap of our editing interests.
The second issue was my participation in the arbitration case, "extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence" and "sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines" (FoF). Yes, I made wrong comments in this case, and I sincerely apologize for making them. I thought that including me as a party to the case was an invitation to comment, even though there was no an obligation to comment. Unfortunately, no one said that my comments were so unhelpful during the case, prior to posting the Proposed Decision (actually, I striked through one of these comments: [1]). This had happen in part because I simply had nothing new to say on this case, being only marginally involved in the editing of pages on Jewish history. That's why I did not submit any Evidence. Who cares what I think about the research article outside of my area of expertise, Wikipedia policies (arbitrators know them better) and participants whose editing I mostly knew in other subject areas? But it was not my intention to offend anyone or make your work more difficult. I am sorry if it looked that way. I just commented, exactly as I would with my colleagues or friends, and we frequently disagree on issues. Well, that was wrong. A contentious arbitration is not a proper place for such discussions. I fully understand this now. I do admit having a negative perception of the article by G&K. Not any more. I now believe their publication was a "red flag" indicating that an effort must be made to fix the issues and improve our reputation in the expert community. I would never make such comments again.
Contributing to the project was difficult for me with such editing restrictions because a lot of subjects I liked editing may be related to Poland during the war, broadly construed. In June 2023, I started editing page Slava Ukraini that existed in such version and did not mention Poland anywhere, hence I thought it was safe to edit. However, Marcelus inserted a WWII Poland-related content, and I made a topic ban violation by modifying his newly included content. Unfortunately, I realized this only much later, being busy in real life and forgetting about all unpleasant things here. As a result, the topic ban was expanded as "World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe" to make sure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would be respected [2]. I apologize for this blunder. As of note, we had only a minor content disagreement with Marcelus who said this on AE.
Once again, I apologize for making such comments during the arbitration and for the topic ban violation a year ago. But I did not have any problems with content editing or dispute resolution in contentious subject areas in recent years, including the area covered by the current topic ban (before the ban was issued). Hence, I am confident I can edit such subjects and interact productively with all users. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
@Barkeep49. Thank you very much! Unlike the topic ban, the interaction ban does not prevent me from doing anything I want in the project. I would rather avoid these users anyway. For me, removing the interaction ban is only a matter of feeling myself as an editor in good standing. This is very important for me, but I can function without it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link by @HouseBlaster. Yes, I agree. This is an unusual case when my positive relationships with two other contributors were deemed as disruptive. I agree they were arguably disruptive as something that had led to my unhelpful comments during the arbitration. But I do not see a reason to continue keeping this interaction ban right now. And to be honest, my positive relationships with these users are strongly overstated. Admittedly, I do not like Piotrus, and for a good reason. It is another matter that I can easily collaborate with him, especially given his immense experience. VM? I like his erudition, but he is not my "buddy". Sure thing, I am not going to support them anywhere. Why would I do it? To be a glutton for punishment? My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion. A simple warning to me during the case would be sufficient. I was very much willing to listen what arbitrators have to say: [3] (Speaking on my comment in this diff, it appears in diff #5 of the FOF as a proof of my wrongdoing, but it was merely my honest answer to a ping by another user who asked me a legitimate question, and I happily striked through my comment after a clarification). I thought mere fact that some of them talked with me during the case was an indication that I am not doing anything seriously wrong. And it was a civil discussion, even though I admittedly assumed bad faith by the off-wiki party and good faith by VM. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery. Yes, indeed. Importantly, this wider topic ban on AE was imposed only to prevent any future violation of the original topic by Arbcom, nothing else[4],[5]. Therefore, if the original topic ban is lifted, there should be no reason for keeping this wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh. Yes, the iban is not hugely restrictive. I can even edit same pages as Piotrus and VM, just should not interact with them per WP:IBAN. Although I never had problems interacting with them on any article talk pages, and we rarely reverted each other's edits. The issue is my comments during administrative discussions that could be regarded as supporting these users. I fully understand this now and would never do it again, even if the iban was lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that anything in my statements was incorrect, please tell, and I can provide additional explanations. If the motion will not pass, and I will come with same request next year, what should I do differently? My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only I never met Piotrus and VM in "real life", but I did not interact with them off-wiki or through email during last 10+ years. I am not saying anything about EEML case, per this advice by Barkeep49. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz. Thank you! Yes, I do not really see why this iBan would be needed. I do have an editing overlap with VM in Wikipedia:RUSUKR and some other areas. These subjects are debated at article talk pages, and VM participate there. As a practical matter, why can't I say on an article talk page that I disagree (or agree) with such and such argument by VM because [an explanation]? What harm that would be? My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 3. Yes, I do ask to remove the wider topic ban issued on WP:AE, please. Otherwise, this does not make any sense. I thought it was clear from my statement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic ban always struck me as one that shouldn't have happened. There simply wasn't anything in evidence that MVBW had problems in the topic area; and topic-bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I can understand why it happened (ArbCom needs to maintain decorum during cases and has a limited toolbox to enforce that) but if they felt something was necessary, just the interaction ban, ejecting MVBW from that specific case during the case, or at most restrictions on participation in future ArbCom cases where MVBW isn't a party would have made more sense, since those were the actual issues it was supposed to resolve. Beyond this specific instance, I feel that ArbCom might want to consider how they'll enforce decorum in cases in the future and what sort of sanctions someone can / ought to get for issues that are solely confined to the case pages itself like this - partially it feels like the topic ban happened because there wasn't a clear precedent of what to do, so they just tossed MVBW into the bin of the same sanctions they were leveling at everyone else even if it didn't make sense. Possibly more willingness to eject unhelpful third parties from specific cases while the case is in progress could be helpful. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that My very best wishes is also subject to an overlapping AE topic ban (WP:AELOG/2023#Eastern Europe: My very best wishes is topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and is warned that further disruption may lead to a topic ban from the whole Eastern Europe topic area, without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she) * Pppery *it has begun...15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remain of the opinion that MVBW should not be under an iban. Would someone kindly be able to explain to me what preventative purpose it is serving? Any "don't do this again" message (both to MVBW and people in the future who might consider disruptively defending someone at ArbCom) has surely been received at this point, so I don't see it remaining serving as a further deterrent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My very best wishes' has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek.
My very best wishes (then known as User:Biophys) cooperated off wiki with Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (then known as User:radeksz) in order to influence articles' contents and to get opposing editors sanctioned. Details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The case resulted in Eastern Europe's listing as a contentious topic for Arbitration enforcement.
Elinruby, I did not say that MVBW's involvement in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) should affect the current application. I said that MVBW "has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek." He wrote above, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." No one asked him to bring up his previous relationship, but if he does, it should be the whole truth. TFD (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, there is no reason I should disclose my interactions with you since it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
MYBW wrote, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." Do you think that is a fair and accurate reflection of their previous interactions?
My advice to you and to myself is to let the administrators decide what signficance if any it has.
I want to say that MVBW is an invaluable contributor, particularly when it comes to Russia and Russians. I deeply regretted losing contact with him because of the topic ban, given that I was still trying to straighten out the pages about collaboration with Nazi Germany and was talking to Polish editors about that.
I was a party to the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case. as best I can tell for much the same reasons as MVBW; we were editing in the topic area of the war in Ukraine at the same time as VM and Gitz6666. I protested the topic ban at the time. MVBW is interested in the war in Ukraine, and not Poland. However the history of the region is such that part of Ukraine was once part of Poland (to vastly oversimplify) and I completely understand both that it would be difficult to respect a topic ban and that it would be necessary to break ties with me because of it.
If it is relevant to anyone's thinking I strongly support removing this topic ban. I do not think the interaction ban is necessary either; he seems pretty serious about addressing the Committee's concerns. Elinruby (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: is bringing up the truly ancient past. As someone who is on friendly terms with all three editors and frequently was in discussions about the Ukraine war where MVBW and VM were reasoning witH editors who thought the Russians could do no wrong, I can assure you that Piotrus was in entirely different topic areas at the time, and told me he lost contact with MVBW after the email list case. It is true that MVBW often agreed with VM on Ukraine, but then so did I. VM did his homework on Ukraine and every time I checked him, he was completely correct. I will also add that when I went back to the war on Ukraine article after the HiP case I found more than one source misrepresentation in the limited area of casualty numbers that I was trying to update, and vast resistance to edits to the "stable version". So I regret to say that in my informed opinion the sanctions were not only unnecessary but harmed the encyclopedia. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: this is someone else's appeal so I am going to give that rather specious argument the silence it deserves. I'll just note you are not disclosing your interactions with me either, for that matter. I am not saying you should have; sometimes ancient is just ancient, is all, and that is true in both cases. Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Clerk notes
I had mixed feelings about the topic ban which is why I didn't end up voting for it. I am open to repealing the topic ban, but not the interaction ban as a first step. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Pppery for that. I'll note that it seems to have been placed as an individual administrator action by Tamzin and as it is a year old (as of today) I'd support repealing that as part of the motion given the broad overlap, but will wait for further feedback before doing so, though admittedly the justification for the topic ban being necessary a year ago is strengthened by that action). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not immediately opposed to this request; there was cause at the time to implement these remedies but it was by no means a central part of the original case. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above I thought our factual basis for the topic ban was weaker than for the i-ban. I ultimately didn't vote for or against it because I decided a firmer outcome to the case was better than a milder one but this particular case I wasn't sure it was ever necessary. I think a year on and given the assurances here by MVBW that we can revoke it, also knowing that should it ever be a problem again that an individual admin or AE could swiftly reimpose it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a reasonable request especially when it can be reimposed as necessary if it becomes an issue. Also support repealing the AE sanction, though if there is objection from editors on that point I'd be open to reconsidering that point. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history and leadup to the case, I am very very wary of repealing the majority of remedies from it; in particular given how past granted appeals/repeals of remedies contributed to escalations and further conflict. However, this was a very harsh sanction and MV's appeal is not bad. I still cannot support the appeal but I will not oppose. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)23:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had time to look over the history of the case through the lens of this amendment request, and this request has been open a week which I think is a sufficient amount of time. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything I would rather it be the other way around; the recent AE topic ban would appear to overlap with this one, but the interaction ban does not appear to be a problem any more. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AE topic ban was a year ago and happened only a couple weeks after the case closed so I don't think it outrageous to be appealed (and rescinded) now else we should have made the minimum time to wait longer. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. I am not convinced that the interaction ban serves any preventative effect; I think that based on this appeal and the unusual nature of the interaction ban (effectively for serving as a "fan club"), its usefulness has worn out and My very best wishes understands what went wrong. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that a repeal of the narrower Polish topic ban is on the cards, it seems pointless to me to repeal that and have a broader topic ban (which covers the Polish topic ban) in place, sending My very best wishes back to square one. I am generally in favour of the Committee not interfering in Community affairs, but given that the topic ban was carried out as arbitration enforcement, it is well within our remit to repeal as well. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had understood it to be an AE consensus rather than individual sanction I'd have incorporated it until my original motion (as an individual it could have just been "undone" as a normal undoing). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums."
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
"These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums."
My apologies to the rest of the community, but there won't be much opportunity for any of you to make informed comments here as the evidence here is private.
It is part of ArbCom's public record that I was issued a "formal warning" in September 2021. This is false. I obviously can't reproduce the email discussion here, but I would ask each arbitrator to search the b-list archives for September 2021 for the thread "FAO: Beeblebrox - regarding recent comments" and tell me if they see a formal warning in there. WTT and myself had a fairly cordial discussion, in which he did make it clear he was speaking on behalf of the committee, but there absolutely is not a "formal warning".
Did the committee vote ont he b-list to issue one? I don't know as I no longer have access to the archives, but I'm pretty sure it would requirte a formal vote to issue a formal warning to a sitting arbitrator.
This was clearly put into this decision to imply there was some precedent of me being warned for discussing private communication on off-wiki criticism sites, when the not-a-warning mainly discussed the tone of my remarks on Commons and off-wiki, and also what I fully admit was an inexcusable comment I made in error on an internal mailing list, which obviously is an entirely seperate issue. The only part of it with any implication of private information two words that probably could've been left unsaid, and again, it was manifestly not a formal warning.
If it wasn't a warning, then what exactly did you think it was? It was not worded as a warning, it's a list of concerns, most of which have no relation whatsoever with the reason I was suspended. I explained my position on itat ARBN [9] after the suspension was announced:
Three things were mentioned in that incident. One was comments I made on another WMF site about a user on that site, along with a parrelell conversation at Wikipediocracy. It had literally nothing to do with the committee or any kind of confidential information, some people just didn't like it. That's it. No actual policy violation. Another was my supposed outing of the troll who is at the center of all of this. There was no outing. Anyone in possession of even half of the facts knows this. No confidentail information of any kind was involved, and again it was utterly unrelated to any arbcom business. The third thing mentioned in there was a remark I did make on one of the mailing lists that I deeply regret. I beilieve what happened was that I thought I was commenting on the ArbCom list when it was in fact the functionaries list and my comment was about a specific member of that team, and not a very positive one. I never intended to insult this user, let alone to do so in front of their peers. It was an error apparenty due to innatention and I apologized to the user and to other functionaries who expressed their dismay about it. So, that's what that is about. I therefore do not agree that the more recent incident was part of a pattern as it was none of the things I was warned about.
the actual text, lightly redacted, of my email response to the committee's concerns.
I have to admit, I have trouble not being a mouthy smartass when it comes to Fae. I guess it's one of those "you can laugh or you can cry" things, it seems obvious to me that he should've been thrown out of the movement entirely a long time ago, but Commons is so broken as a community that they continue to tolerate his nonsense so long as he continues to make a big deal of the sheer number of robotic uploads he's made. So, I made an extremely sarcastic comment when Fae floated the idea that if the WMF wouldn't pay him, maybe he could get the general public to do so, using a "tip jar" which by my understanding is basically how OnlyFans works, yet somehow pointing that out is the most offensive thing anyone has ever said. That's what actually upset them, the rest is just Fae being Fae. And then when Rodhullandemu started acting as his attack dog that just turned the ridiculousness level up to 11. Two little peas in a pod, both playing the victim and the bully at the same time. And I freely admit that I was very dismissive of his super-dramatic overreaction to the whole thing, re-posting every word I posted on WO as "evidence" that I was directly encouraging people to physically attack his home, which is the apparent basis of this report to T&S. If they find that compelling, I guess I'm done here. If I had actually done that, I would totally deserve an office ban and whatever other ban came my way, but I'm quite certain I did no such thing.
For me, it was distressing to see Fae's outright lies and Rodhulls creepy threats spread onto en.wp by Owen Blacker, who I don't believe had any involvement in the Commons discussion and was clearly acting as Fae's proxy without doing any critical thinking about the merit of the accusations.
On the other hand, the <email posted to the wrong list> comment.... I don't know what happened there, I think in my mind I was talking to the committee, or maybe just the OS team, certainly not the full functionaries list. As you all know I often use a more informal tone on our mailing list, and somehow it slipped into another conversation where it was obviously not appropriate. It was a giant screw up and I feel like a jerk about it and have reached out to some of the other functionaries who seemed particularly distressed by it. I was recovering from covid at the time and maybe it made my brain a little ...fuzzy? That's not an excuse but maybe it's at least sort of an explanation.
To the other two points:
The Lourdes incident was a good faith error that she made 50 times worse by her very public reaction to it. We've since come to an understanding, as far as I know she has accepted that I honestly meant her no harm and certainly wasn't trying to maliciously out her, and she copped to the fact that the way she approached a solution was exactly the wrong way. It's worth noting that, at that time, it did not require any advanced permissions to see the edits she had made where she self-outed. They had been visible to one and all for about five years.
The <redacted> thing, all I really said there was reiterating that we were not making a statement on <redacted> and everyone should just accept that sometimes, we just don't know what really happened.I don't feel like I let out anything that someone couldn't guess for themselves by saying <redacted> but I o dget the point that that could've gone unsaid.
I suppose I could've said nothing at all, in all honesty that is a skill I have tried to work on, when to just shut up, but I know I miss the mark sometimes. I am also trying to make myself get less screen time on the whole, It's been really bad ever since lockdown last year, and I find that it is often when I've been online all day that I say or do something that upsets people. I'm working on it, I built a tiny little campsite in my backyard and have been thoroughly enjoying sitting out there reading a book, having a campfire, or just watching the trees wave in the wind.
I do apologize if this has caused undo stress or concern to anyone, especially the <email comment>, thing, which clearly made an unpleasant situation much worse.
Feel free to share this with T&S if that seems like it would be helpful, and my apologies to Joe as well, I know he has enough crap to deal with without this.
As you can see, when these concerns were brought to me, I responded to them by flatly rejecting the validity of large portions of it as not being arbcom business. I apologized for the one glaring error I did make, that in no way involved private information, it was just a screw up. The only part of this laundry list that has any bearing on what came later was two words that were at worst ill considered but did not explicitly reveal anything of real substance. Worm and I talked some more about some of it, but the committee as a whole made no reply to my rejection of the basis of most of this list of concerns.
I feel like every time any aspect of this situation is discussed, I keep getting told that I should have known to assume things that were not explicitly stated, because I was an arb and for no other reason. I don't buy that line of argument, at all. I was a party being investigated by the committee and have the same right as anyone else to expect clear and explicit communication from the committee. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I don't expect an apology, I just want a false statement removed from the official record. I'm not asking for anything more than that.
However, it is perhaps worth noting that Fae was eventually banned here and ragequit at Commons, and used a bunch of exceedingly obvious socks over at Meta, and that RH&E was desysopped and banned here, desysopped and blocked at Commons, blocked on Wikidata, and finally globally banned by the office. In light of all that I continue to struggle to see how I was the bad guy here, or why it was any of the committee's business what I said on Commons or WPO about either one of them. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: the existence of that discussion was used as a justification later on the grounds that I had already been warned about leaking material from the mailing list. Do you see where it explicitly says that in the supposed warning, because I do not. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it would be illuminating for the community if the committee were to post a semi-redacted version of the email to me, as I have done with my reply. Maybe I'm wrong and upon seeing it others will agree with the assertion that it was a formal warning, I really don't know. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today04:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to the ")a" alluded to below, I think the key sentence is the one right before that. This is the crux of my argument here. This felt to me like a polite reminder more than a formal warning. I understand that there was an apparent intent that it be recieved as a warning, but it was not. To my mind a formal warning would not use language like that and would be more stern.
CaptainEek, to give some outside perspective; from what you've said I would personally not interpret that as a "formal warning" - I would expect such a warning to call itself a warning, or at a least a synonym.
I probably wouldn't even interpret it as a warning, and while that might be a personal flaw, I think its useful for the committee to remember the cultural and neurological diversity of the community here and be very explicit in their communications. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a former arbitrator who participated in the deliberations with respect to both Rodhullandemu and Fae during my tenure, I would encourage the members of the current committee to review their history during 2011-12. The fact that both are involved in more drama a decade-ish later suggests that my colleagues and I did not do enough to ensure their permanent removal from all WMF projects. I believe there were adequate, although differing, grounds for such known to the committee (and Jimbo, in at least one of the cases) through private evidence at that time. Had the committee then pursued a remedy those familiar with the situation and subsequent events can endorse in retrospect, large parts of the above message would have been unnecessary.
Now, having said that, JustStepSideways, even if you've been done dirty... what outcome do you want? If an apology? Sure, I get the desire, but I question whether the benefit is worth the drama. The committee isn't the greatest at handling internal dissent, and I doubt it ever will be.
But if the fastest way to end this is to s/formal warning/expression of concern/, such a change requires the active agreement of a team of volunteers whom you've just called liars. If they do it, I'm not sure who comes out looking more magnanimous. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a difference between the committee and JSS over whether the communication given to JSS should have reasonably been perceived to be a formal warning. Here are the topthreehits for a DuckDuckGo query for "employment law formal written warning elements". While ArbCom is not a paid position, it certainly involves more work than many such positions, and there are relatively consistent expectations, at least in the United States, for how to go about such a warning. Which elements of written employment warnings were plausibly germane to an ArbCom member? Which ones were clearly and unequivocally delivered? In light of those answers, is it reasonable to continue to call that communication a formal warning? Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the committee: for those of us outside the loop, what is the difference between a “warning” and a “formal warning” in this context? In other Wikipedia contexts it seems like the analogous difference would be “please don’t do X again” versus “if you do X again, you may be/will be blocked”, but I presume the committee has its own procedures and definitions. 28bytes (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, a formal warning usually has the trappings that make it, well, formal. "For the Arbitration Committee" is definitely one of them, but they are generally either Case Remedies or Motions that take the explicit form User:Example is reminded/warned/admonished that.... Here[10][11][12][13] are a few examples of formal warnings I grabbed from the archives; while I obviously don't have access to private motions I'd expect them to be logged privately and have similar trappings to show that they are a motion and a formal warning.
While arbs may have intended the message sent to JSS as a formal warning, the will of Arbcom writ large isn't always the same thing. Formal warnings include those formalities not just as decoration, but to ensure that there is no ambiguity and misunderstandings like this don't happen.
Is it really that hard to just say "we probably shouldn't have said 'formal warning', we probably should have said 'warning'"? If it's bugging JSS, and does no harm, why not just give him the small win? Even if you don't think it's necessary? Twisting yourself in knots, CaptainEek, to say, essentially, "well even though it wasn't a formal warning, how could he not know it was a formal warning" ... what benefit is served, to anyone? Also, Beeb, please request Oversight back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants an unsolicited opinion by a user that has faded into the past but was relevant at the time? It's what this saga needs isn't it? I'll take some blame here - I took the lead in 2021, and therefore the lack of clarity that came out at the end may well have been at least partially down to me and my style. So was the email a "formal warning" - well it didn't include the word "warning", nor did it include any indication of ramifications if the email was not heeded. It was not a "Warning" by arbcom standards "X is warned that..." However, it was clearly a warning - i.e. cautionary advice - and it was formal - i.e. voted upon, out of the blue for JSS & framed as from the committee. In other words, all sides are right from a point of view and digging heels in won't get anyone anywhere.
If that were all I had to say, I wouldn't have dragged my sorry rear end back here - it's patently clear to both sides and should be easy enough to sort out. The problem is hurt, on both sides. Not long ago, JSS was considered one of our best - spoke his mind, engaged with the community and worked hard in the deep meta of Wikipedia. He was attacked for that, as many admins at the coal face are, and since he helped the fall from grace of a few prominent (but oh so problematic) users, he took the brunt of their anger. I saw this, because I took a fair chunk of their anger too. Being in those roles wear at you, and is certainly a contributory factor that I'm not here every day.
I could understand if the committee felt that they could not carry on with one of their number acting in a manner at odds with the committee's psyche. I can even imagine that JSS said something somewhere that crossed a line that that meant he needed to be shown the door. But let's be clear here - the manner in which you as a committee did so has left the encyclopedia in a poorer state. The power imbalance between the individual and the committee is something that every committee member should be painfully aware of, the damage that can be done by making a statement must never outweigh the benefit of that statement. I hope that every committee member considers deeply about whether this sort of thing could have been handled by a "quiet word", firmly but away from public eyes, or even encouraging resignation (jump before push). This should be a time for reflection, a time to ask what could have been done better and how.
My opinion is that the committee can help repair this, for little to no cost from their side besides climbing back down on the issue. I've said above that you're not wrong, but it's not about being right or wrong, it's about doing the right thing WormTT(talk) 10:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase Louis Brandeis, the goal of the ArbCom as a whole and of each of its members (past, present, and future) should be to resolve disputes and dramas, not to introduce disputes and dramas of their own. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a great expression that came up around 2016: "You have a right to your own opinion but not to your own facts." The facts seem to be that ArbCom sent Beeblebrox a message of some kind at the indicated time and about this non-public subject. It also seems that it was intended as a warning. But "Beeblebrox should have understood that it was a warning" is an opinion, and reasonable people may disagree. I think one of the arbs may have hit the nail on the head: "JSS, did you need it spelled out for you that it was bad to do those things and you shouldn't do them again?"
It looks like yes they did. And why not do so? Wikipedia is a diverse, multinational project and not everyone thinks the same way or makes the same assumptions.
I think Floq, Maxim, and Worm have it right. If the description of the message as a formal warning is a problem, why not improve it? The substance of the message, whatever it was, will stay the same. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
When I saw this notification I was thinking "Yeah JSS can request restoration of OS now, I hope addresses what I mention in January because I want to restore." Obviously this is a different request than what I was expecting. I'm going to hold off commenting until some colleagues who weren't on the committee in 2021 and 2023 can weigh in on this (both in terms of what happened in 2021 and whether the wording was fair in what was voted on last year). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@28bytes reasonable question. I don't know what the intent was of the arb who did the initial draft of what would become that motion. If the initial draft had been written as "warning" rather than "formal warning" I doubt formal would have been added, but in my mind the formality was that it was voted upon and the email addressing it made clear that it was on behalf of the entire committee. This is in contrast to some discussions, both with Beeblebrox and others, where it's more a "hey please knock that off" type of thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways I've just got to say, and I'm saying this next part as bluntly as I can because so much of this has been your complaints that things weren't written plainly in a way you could understand: you've blown this. When this has come up behind the scenes, I have argued that were you to make a credible promise to not reveal confidential information, something as simple as While I still don't think I did anything wrong I understand the concerns expressed by the arbitrators and will not reveal any information I learn as an oversighter. Please let me have that back. we not only should but would basically have no choice to restore your OS and to functionaries. Because that is the difference between removal and a suspension and you'd have done your six month suspension so all should now be restored just as it would have been had you been suspended for six months and your term hadn't been up. And I think there was maybe a majority of the committee ready to vote along with me. Instead you want to rehash whether or not we warned you. Maybe the committee will vote to change it to warned from formally warned - serious question: if we did this would you feel satisfied or would you only be satisfied if we struck the warning characterization altogether? If I could just make the decision to change that wording from formal warning to warning I would reagrdless of whether or not it would make you happy, but I am also incredibly uninterested in spending even a fraction of the time I've spent here on other appeals from other people who think we got a word wrong and would be happier if we struck a word.
Maybe the committee will decide to make public the 2021 letter, maybe it won't. My first and second thoughts were that we shouldn't because I have become rather skeptical of partial transparency measures in situations like this and am uninterested in defending how we chose to redact it considering that would be two steps (Warning/not a warning->2021 letter redactions) removed from what we should be doing (voting on restoring your OS and functionary status) and one step away from the actual request made here. Now I'm wavering on those thoughts because transparency is important to me and so despite all my concerns, it might still be the right thing to do.
But I'm just overwhelmingly sad that this is what is important to you and what we're spending time on. Which means that in six months when you'd be eligible for another appeal (because I imagine that limitation is what will be set regardless of whether we change formal warning to warning) I'll be off the committee. Or if instead you decide to run for ArbCom again in 4 months you won't be able to benefit from the fact that you've had your access restored. I was never - absent you going off the rails in your response to us which didn't happen - going to vote to remove you because I don't think your offenses merit that (one reason why? I think you are innocent of what Fae accused you of) and because of the incredibly high regard I have held you at all times not related to WPO. And rather than take the hint that I dropped for you in January and here (and which perhaps Sdqraz also tried to drop for you for you) and rather than taking the advice that Floq offered you, you just want to be vindicated about the 2021 email. Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. It just feels so small compared to what could have been. Barkeep49 (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW - and perhaps no one but me cares and I'm just wasting bytes here - I privately supported (weakly) releasing a redacted version of the 2021 email shortly after making the above comment. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee held a vote on the warning on the b-list, after extensive discussion. The resulting message was then transmitted to JSS with the lead in of "on behalf of the rest of the committee," followed by our list of concerns, and signed "For the Arbitration Committee," which any Arb should know means represents the will of ArbCom writ large. If it wasn't a warning, then what exactly did you think it was? CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSS, did you need it spelled out for you that it was bad to do those things and you shouldn't do them again? You're a bright guy and held a position of trust. The fact that we didn't begin the message with "this is a formal warning" does not prevent it from being one. A message that is a list of concerns is inherently a statement of "don't do that again please." CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓21:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways: I see the 2021 warning as being on dual bases, one of which was revealing private Committee deliberations (see the "(a)" mentioned by Barkeep and body paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of the message [not considering the "on behalf of the rest of the committee" bit mentioned by CaptainEek as a paragraph]).
@Floquenbeam: I appreciate your pragmatic idea to resolve this, but I don't see how the characterisation of the 2021 message as a "previous formal warning... concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums" is inaccurate at all, even with the benefit of hindsight. However, I could grumble that the warning should have been public given that it was regarding an incumbent member (and I'll check with the others to see if there is any appetite for that now). Sdrqaz (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the announcement was posted in November, I was initially somewhat mystified by the "previous formal warning", as my recollection was that WTT had more of a conversation with JSS. My understanding of "formal warning" would be that we had sent something like "Beeblebrox is admonished for X", not so much as a conversation between colleagues, although that conversation was motivated by a consensus that existed amongst the Committee. In 2021, Committee consensus about what to do seemed to have coalesced on either "Informal warning / note from an individual committee member" or "Formal warning / note from the committee as a whole", and the resulting email in my opinion is some weird hybrid of these two options. The sentence "These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums." would probably be more reasonable as "In September 2021, within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised regarding his off-wiki conduct."
As a more general comment, it is not uncommon for sanctioned users, no matter what "sanction" is involved, to want to have the context described correctly, so I don't think that JSS's request is unreasonable. Maxim (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@28bytes: I was the one who originally authored the "previous formal warning" language, if my memory serves me correctly. What I meant to convey with that language was that the warning was not just an "informal warning" from the committee, which I think in my mind would have been something like "other arbitrators say to knock it off". Instead, this warning resulted from formal discussions among the Committee on the -b list without JSS present, and was given "For the Arbitration Committee". (For reference, this is a much less common occurrence than the "informal warnings" as describe above; I might be misremembering but in my years on the committee a "formal warning" happens much less than once per year.) Clearly, the language could have been more clear, and I would not strongly object to changing it now, though I broadly concur also in Barkeep's comments. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 16:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the discussion and the email. I can see arguments for it being interpreted as a formal warning or a list of concerns. However, JSS was told that his behaviour was inappropriate, then repeated that behaviour. Arbs are expected to have a heightened level of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and I would not expect them to need multiple reminders on a topic such as this. So if the motion says "formal warning", "list of concerns", or something else, I don't care. If an arb wants to put forward a motion to change the wording, my general attitude will probably be "shrug".
What frustrates me is that changing the wording does not fulfil the first pillar of Wikipedia: that this is an encyclopedia. If JSS asked for OS permissions returned, or lifting other restrictions, that could help make the encyclopedia better because JSS is an experienced editor asking to help maintain the wiki. If JSS's wording was accepted, there would be no change to how Wikipedia operates or what tasks JSS can perform. Multiple editors, ex-arbs and arbs have taken time away from wiki-activities to discuss the definitions of a formal warning and a list of concerns. I would rather that JSS's energy, and the energy of all editors who commented, be put towards improving the encyclopedia instead. I will grow increasingly frustrated if JSS continues to ask ARCA to change the motion's wording instead of asking for ways to help them improve the encyclopedia. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can move from "formal warning" to "warning" in the text if it will reduce the drama level. Aquila non capit muscas. The edit, however, does not change the reason why the 2023 committee made the decision it did. --GuerilleroParlez Moi18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The email in question was formal in the sense that it was not an email from an individual arbitrator, but rather was written on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. However, I wouldn't call it a formal warning in the way that I'm familiar with the concept. I can see valid points for and against it being described as a warning, but a formal warning should be unambiguous in nature. It may be that I'm used to a different standard for what constitutes a warning, but while it outlined concerns about misconduct, it was missing the consequence element that is typically present in a warning. That being said, I think if the word "warning" was changed to "notice" (These failures followed a previous formal notice issued...) it would be an accurate description. - Aoidh (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The November announcement of the suspension of Beeblebrox is amended to remove the sentence These failures followed a previous formal warning issued to Beeblebrox in September 2021 by the Arbitration Committee concerning his conduct in off-wiki forums. and insert in its place the sentence In September 2021, within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal.
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
If this is a version everyone can live with and it puts the issue to bed then fine. I'm not convinced that arguing over semantics is a good use of everyone's time but equally it's fair to say that the "warning" did not explicitly call itself such. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?20:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regular warnings come classified level 2-4. ArbCom warnings analogously are reminded-warned-admonished. For an arbitrator to receive such an email from the rest of the committee and not see it as a warning is (imo) obtuse at best and wikilawyering at worst, on the level of 'depends on what "is" means'. I'll support the change in wording but with no change in my understanding of its underlying intent and meaning. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Suspension of Beeblebrox)
Even though I feel some sympathy for Just Step Sideways (I understand a need to set the record straight and correct a perceived injustice) and even though the pragmatic part of me wants to vote for this because it will make this go away, I cannot. Moving past my opinion that this was certainly a formal warning, "within the scope of internal Committee discussions, Beeblebrox was advised that his off-wiki conduct was suboptimal" makes it seem like there was a simple disagreement and someone disliked a member's actions. That happens all the time. What doesn't happen regularly is being kicked off arbcom-en-b while others discuss and vote on your conduct, which is what happened.
As someone who wasn't on the Committee in 2021 & 2023 and as someone who isn't 100% sure that the suspension was the right thing to do, I don't feel an instinctive need to defend the actions of those iterations – the fact that I am defending the original wording should maybe hint at the fact that I truly believe that that sentence was right and that this new wording would be misleading the Community. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain (Suspension of Beeblebrox)
Arbitrator discussion (Suspension of Beeblebrox)
ArbCom is not infallible, and while we did not necessarily do anything procedurally incorrectly, we were not as succinct and clear as we should have been, which should be reflected in how we make our statements on-wiki (and off). Primefac (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am bringing this up now – and I am deliberately not naming any individual cases – because it is already going to be a drama-fest when a former admin runs to regain the tools and the ArbCom case in question is brought to the forefront. The last thing we need at that point in time is uncertainty regarding whether any particular ex-admin is even eligible for AELECT and then the inevitable ARCA specific to that case attracting yet more drama. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is described as an alternative to the Requests for Adminship processatWP:ADE, and the rest of the lead describes how it is distinct from RfA. My understanding is that ADE is another way to request adminship, but it is not a big-r Request for Adminship (even though the WP:Requests for adminship page is not capitalized, it is capitalized at WP:ADE and I think that is a good way of communicating the difference). Thinking out loud, perhaps a motion adding something to WP:ARBPRO stating that unless specified otherwise, "requests for adminship" refers to any method of requesting adminship, including a traditional RfA or a successful candidacy at WP:ADE. (And that this applies retroactively.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 03:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the request for adminship process will have two routes for a trial period: the open voting method, and the secret ballot method. Thus the arbitration committee procedure in question covers both routes. isaacl (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting question. My concern would be the fact that discussion goes on before voting starts and is basically forbidden once voting opens. A candidate could give evasive or incomplete answers to questions for three days, or give no answers until just before voting opens, and that's it. I think there is a small but real risk that this could become a back door for previously problematic admins to slip through. I think the safest road would probably be to consider both options going forward, but to leave previous decisions worded as is. There was no expectation at the time these previous decisions were made that there would be any other path to adminship, it doesn't exactly seem fair to the community to basically retroactively give these users a second path. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
When I've been asked about this privately my answer is that once the community adopts this formally, we can see if the motions need to be updated. If Admin Elections are considered a way to RfA the standard langauge will work. If it's considered some new way, we can pass a motion to retroactively add it as an option. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlasterWP:ADE is at the moment a work in process. Who knows what it says or what RfA will say by the time it's adopted. If the community decides the current process and elections are two paths of the same process, sort of like how you can appeal at AN or AE for CT sanctions, then I don't think we need to do anything. And if the community decides they're different then we act. But I think we should be taking our cues from the community and there is no need for us to act until the community finalized its plans around elections. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like there will be a consensus to change things for the trial. However, if someone was desyopped and wants to run, I urge them to make a specific request even if we're not going to make any comprehensive change. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with Barkeep. If the community establishes a new process to become an admin, editors who are desysoped can also use that process to request/apply for the tools. Requests to update documents can happen if/when those processes are put in place. Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having run at one RfA and at two elections, I'm not a fan of the elections (a lot more uncertainty-induced stress). Putting that aside, this question was asked at Conflict of interest management and the answer is "yes": the point is that they cannot just ask at WP:BN. I'm fine with amending the procedures now, given that this is in front of us now and given Extraordinary Writ's comments. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so gung-ho on letting desysopped admins run until after the test run. If the test run goes fine and dandy, I think the answer is an obvious yes. But if the test run is a failure/the community decides it is not going to adopt the election process after all, that raises some complex issues about legitimacy which would be further complicated by a previously desysopped admin. I'm not certain I understand how the test run will work, so if I'm wrong about the mechanics, please correct me :) CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓05:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, any of the committee's references to RfA includes admin elections and includes any trials of the new process, unless the message separately mentions admin elections too. I also don't really see a legitimacy problem specific to desysopped admins in case of a trial failure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an example of something falling under "hard cases make bad law". The intention of "may regain tools only through a new RfA" is less to require RfA specifically, but to prohibit asking a bureaucrat for summary restoration. That said, it probably would be cleaner that no former admins with cloudy circumstances in the first election, until we have a sense of how administrator elections work in practice (which would remove an hard or edge case situation). Yet, I don't feel nearly strongly enough about to consider formally making a rule about it; if anything, a sort of a gentlemen's agreement would be more appropriate. Maxim (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like putting the horse a country mile before the cart. I would rather we return to this discussion if the community does this as more than a once off --GuerilleroParlez Moi18:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a need to change the wording. The text says ..submit a new request for adminship, not ...submit a new Request for Adminship, and one can thus argue per the rationale at WP:SMALLDETAILS (and the spirit of the motion) that "putting my name down for an administrator election" is considered a "request for adminship". Primefac (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one where I do have strong feelings. I would strongly support a motion clarifying that admin elections are open to desysopped admins if such a motion were proposed. The purpose of RfA and any alternatives is to determine whether an editor has a mandate from the community to be an administrator. I agree it would be cleaner if the first few candidates through the trial process were free of any baggage but in principle I would welcome a candidacy from a desysopped admin; I'm certain there are ex-admins with chequered histories who could be valuable assets. I don't think we need a motion but we can always revisit it if or when one of these ex-admins runs and succeeds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?19:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the community decides that this process should proceed and is a valid way for the community to determine whether or not they believe a candidate who is requesting adminship should receive the administrative tools, then that meets what I believe is the intent of the submit a new request for adminship wording of the relevant procedure. If this becomes an established method of requesting adminship then that wording can be clarified as needed, but I'm not certain that needs to be done yet. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
