Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 178

Neutral

1. Is this an application of Sub judice to Wikipedia? How would one enforce it? The arbiters discussing by phone or e-mail (on their list or Arbitration Wiki) would also run foul of this provision. I think that in some cases off-wiki discussion in a public forum would be inappropriate, while is other cases it might be beneficial to get unofficial remarks. In the case of really inappropriate posts, it would end up in a de-arbing (by whatever procedure that is possible), and this RfC would be moot. I think more nuance is required here: where comments are inappropriate, what type of comments are inappropriate, and what sort of sanction would apply to an arbiter who runs foul of this.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   I'm remaining neutral on this for pretty much the same reason as Eostrix directly above, and will likely strike this and change my !vote if more detail is provided as they have described. ezlev.^talk 07:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC), struck by ezlev^tlk
   _ctrbs 08:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   Eostrix, Ezlev, updated to include your views, without changing much of the intent. The proposal includes discussion of active cases by voting Arbs on public forums, not any other kind of private communication between Arbs and other stakeholders. Thanks, Lourdes 07:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

2. I agree with the general idea that arbs should not gossip about cases they are arbitrating (either on or off wiki). But this needs a lot more thought before we begin to write rules.

   We also need to differentiate between cases where an Arb is acting IN THEIR ROLE AS AN ARBITRATOR, and cases where an Arb is acting AS AN INVOLVED PARTY in the case. Consider the scenario where an arb is in a dispute with non-arbs... the dispute goes to arbitration... and this arbitration ends up being discussed in outside venues. In this scenario, the involved arb is not acting as an arbitrator, but as a disputant. Are we saying that the disputants who are not arbs are free to comment on the case in outside venues (and potentially make accusations about the involved arb), but the disputant who happens to be an arb must remain silent (and so can defend himself/herself or present his/her side of the story)? That does not sound right.

   I could see having some sort of sanctionable “gag order” about active ArbCom cases... but surely it should apply to ANYONE involved in the case, whether they are arbs or not. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose as written. Being a member of the enwiki arbcom doesn't preclude an editor and a case participant from also being active on other WMF projects where they may have local reasons to discuss each other. Additionally, a committee member shouldn't be barred from participating in a global discussion of any sort on meta-wiki just becuase there is also a local case. The discussion section below suggests that this part could be changed during implementation, in which case I'm neutral at this time on discussions that could occur on public non-WMF venues. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   Also, what would the remedy/penalty for this be (would someone need to drag the committee member to arbcom)? Would recused committee members be constrained? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

   Moved out of oppose after the last rewrite. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

4. Arbs should certainly be discouraged from discussing active cases and participants, but I don't think they need to be strictly forbidden. I can imagine a few scenarios where this may be necessary; and trying to enforce a prohibition seems problematic at best. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
5. ArbCom, please get your house in order; loose lips sink ships. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

(Non-administrator comment) Just to be clear, when you say outside public forums, you're referring to off-Wikipedia discussion boards, and off other Wikipedia channels like Discord and IRC? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks, Lourdes 06:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: Regarding Eostrix's objection in the "Neutral" section, I did not interpret your proposal to mean to cover Arbitrators talking to each other privately by any means they choose. That would mean their internal discussions, whether by phone, e-mail, mailing list, or carrier pigeon, would not be affected. Is that how you meant the proposal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see you've updated. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks BmK. As updated above, the proposal includes discussion of active cases by voting Arbs on external public forums, not any other kind of private communication between Arbs and other stakeholders. Thanks, Lourdes 07:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am sad that such a thing needs to be discussed. I should be clear without restrictions that talking about a case - which implies talking about living persons - outside that case should be handled with utmost care and caution, voluntarily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm having a little trouble with the formatting here. Does Support mean that one supports the concept that arbs should not use outside public forums, or does it mean that one supports the arbs ability to do so? With the question asked being Should Arbcom members be restricted from discussing active cases and participants on public forums outside Wikipedia (that is, till the case is open)?, I just don't understand how the answers can be Support, Oppose, and Neutral. SQL^{Query me!} 08:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi SQL. Support means agree with restricting Arbs. Oppose means disagree with restricting arbs. I have added these two words for the benefit of readers. Thanks for pointing it out. Lourdes 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• "that is, till the case is open" why is that to be the rule? Obviously this is targeted at me specifically, so I feel like I must ask why this, exactly,is how I am to be restricted?
  talk
  ) 08:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• In your case
  User:Beeblebrox! you should be restricted by not being allowed access to anything remotely confidential. You clearly have not the slightest idea of the behaviour expected of an Arb. Giano (talk)
  09:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I read this is a typo that should be "until the case is closed". Is it not? — Bilorv (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I boldly fixed that, as it seems obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Lourdes 10:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are relevant off-wikipedia forums that it is beneficial for them to be able to discuss (IRC and Discord come to mind). There may well be forums that it is not advisable, but I'm not sure cast-iron rules are wise here. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • To clarify, reading the details a bit more carefully, I realise I should clarify that this was meant for things like case requests or declined cases. If it's a private case then there's only limited groups they should be talking to, and any truly public forum wouldn't be suitable. There are some edge issues, like discussing the outcomes, mixed cases, information that is available publicly, despite the case being private etc etc etc Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Using the word 'Wikipedia' is odd. So it's OK for a discussion to take place on the French Wikipedia, say, but not Wikidata or Commons? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Mike, would you suggest any alternative that would capture the point better? The question I have put is purely to assess the broad sense of the community regarding off-site discussions of active cases by voting Arbitrators. One could of course scrutinise each word, but I hope the broad idea of the RfC is clear. Thanks, Lourdes 10:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  "The English Wikipedia" would mean only here, on this project. Do you intend to restrict only committee members from referring to an active case in the scope of something larger like a global discussion on meta-wiki? Are you only trying to prevent discussion out side of all public WMF projects? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Xao. Lourdes 11:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Lourdes: I can't tell which of my two questions you are responding to. What (if any) non-private venues outside of the English Wikipedia are you wanting to exempt? Some examples: Nowhere; the Meta-Wiki; other shared WMF projects (Commons, Wikidata); other WMF projects (the French Wikitionary). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for being short on the previous response. To be candid, if this passes, I would leave it to the ArbCom's judgement to decide on this. They understand what is best for them, and in what form this should/should not be ratified. Lourdes 14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• • @Lourdes: I would suggest 'Wikimedia' plus one of 'projects', 'movement', 'Foundation websites', etc. depending on what exactly you are intending. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You're right. I'm not sure whether now, after the participation of many editors, it would be appropriate to change the wording to, say, Wikimedia projects (given that some others may have voted considering the current wording). Lourdes 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it would be good to change it, but others may well disagree. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm guessing you don't want my advice since you keep trying to convince everyone I'm horrible, but years ago I wrote
        talk
        ) 15:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
        • For someone who just voted to desysop an admin who cared about accessibility, you're certainly trying your hardest to violate
          WP:LISTGAP. Furthermore, your attacks on the editor who proposed this are not acceptable - and quite frankly it's appalling that you think it appropriate to come cast aspersions against this editor simply for some minor wording problems that were quickly improved by community discussion (below) to capture the intended meaning. You've been digging your hole deeper ever since you were called out for your off-wiki activity - and you're now stooping as low as to make veiled attacks against other editors simply for disagreeing with them. This is certainly conduct unbecoming of an arbitrator - while I'm not suggesting you need to agree, you definitely shouldn't be showing up in discussions that started because of your poor behavior and behaving poorly in those discussions by attacking the people who proposed them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!
          ) 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a weird RfC. 1) why is an RfC happening on the AN? 2) this does not seem like a valid way to
  WP:ARBCOND, and it seems inappropriate to try to impose limitations on arbitrators in a backdoor fashion. So I'm not sure the outcome of this RfC is valid anyway (unless this is the petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing part?). ProcrastinatingReader (talk
  ) 10:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I just wish it to be known that I am not aware of whatever situation prompted this RfC, so my response is not about any specific circumstance, but about the RfC per se. In answer to other objections, the RfC seems to me to be legitimate, and I don't know why an RfC can't be held at WP:AN -- they're certainly held in much less-traveled areas of Wikipedia and held to be enforceable when closed, and it's advertised on
  WP:CENT, which it good. If the wording is currently a bit vague, this can be fixed if the RfC receives sufficient support. Beyond My Ken (talk
  ) 11:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Just in case anyone reading this doesn't realize, I am an arbitrator - I want to get that disclosure out of the way up top. I had no idea until I reached the discussion that this was intended to be a petition to amend ARBPOL. I thought it was instead an advisory RfC. Since this is intended to be a petition that should be made clear - for instance the opposes don't mean anything. I've opposed ARBPOL amendment petitions before so that's fine but everyone should be clear what is going on here and that is, I feel, very much not the case. I would ask that the wording that this is a petition to amend ARBPOL be made clearer and the people who've participated before this clarification should be told so they may change their participation if they wish. I also suggest the wording of the CENT notification be changed. Second, as worded and read at its most literal it will prevent Arbitrators from using the listserv or ArbWiki for the case. It would prevent drafting arbs from using voice chat with each other when discussing the draft decision or prevent them from conferring with each other via email over a request made to, for example, have an extended word limit. Read slightly less literally it would still prevent arbs from telling clerks to do something related to a case on IRC. All of these limitations would severly impair the ability of the committee to work and seem like unintended consequences from the way this was worded. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  by policy: "Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices. Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This is often shorthanded to respect the 'sprit of policy'. So, Arbcom members are already expected to be able to not be absurdist literalists, and avoid being zealous infraction Jerverts. Alanscottwalker (talk

  ) 15:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  opening a petition to revise arbpol, which is what is desired here, has a very different impact than advising on community sentiment. And while I think the community elects Arbs who are not Javerts, intent gets washed away with time while the plain language remains with plenty of editors who are perpetually wary of Arbcom and their actions. I think critics and watchdogs have value but it would still be nice to avoid a situation where they rely on the plain language of a policy while others are like "no you have to look at intent." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, What's the worst that could happen? Let's assume this gets in word for word (and that the consensus gathering is it has to be exactly these words), even long before it is ever applied, if the committee wants to tweek, they still have ways to tweek it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  For the first time in history the community amendment option is successfully exercised at ArbPol and you think there would be tolerance for ArbCom putting forward tweaks? I don't think that's the case and indeed think it would be easier to try and get reasonable changes made now - as has happened - rather than after the fact. To me this whole process has worked how it should - an idea was put forth, concerns were raised not on the intent of the idea but the wording, the idea was adjusted in light of those concerns, and now the idea can continue to be considered for what it philosophically is trying to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  The proposition has been stated as a question, so it could never go in word for word into policy. And until the close is done, we don't know what the close will say about wording. In consensus, the consensus is not found in the proposition alone, it's found in the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest a simple change in wording that captures the original meaning in my opinion: Should Arbcom members be restricted from discussing active cases and participants in such cases in public, non-WMF affiliated locations while the case is ongoing? - this allows for any WMF-affiliated location to be used (be it meta, a different WMF wiki, list-serv, etc) - and it also allows for the arbitrators to determine in their own best judgement, when private communication is necessary, where such may take place - i.e. it doesn't restrict their private communications amongst each other or between them and parties to cases. I think this is what the original question was designed to ask... but maybe I'm just confused. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with Berchanhimez over the wording change. Let me ping xaosflux and Mike Peel on their views. Barkeep49, would this wording p roposed by Bechanhimez satisfy your working requirements? Please advise. Also, with respect to the petition, I'll amend the top and ping all participants, but it would be good to get your comments on the wording before I do that. Thanks, Lourdes 15:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I think that revised wording would alleviate my concerns about the ability of the committee to operate and manage cases as is done now (and doesn't appear to be what is intended to be restricted). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I put more in a contingent oppose above. In general, I don't think volunteers that are members of the enwiki arbcom should be saddled with WMF-wide interaction discussion bans on other projects with everyone that is a "participant" in a case here. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation of "discussing... participants in such cases" implies discussing the case or related facts with them - not simply interacting with them as a whole - and again, my proposal only applies "off-wiki" completely - thus you don't have a WMF-wide interaction ban with them, you simply have a "don't comment on them at all off wiki while the case is in progress" ban - which should be common sense. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Or else! Assuming this was passed, what would be the expected remedy/penalty for violations? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  WP:DR. -- Alanscottwalker (talk

  ) 15:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Alanscottwalker: yup, that's gonna be fun! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  People are already aware that disagreements are sometimes, and sometimes often, not fun. And in the Arbcom area, in particular, it's hard to think of anything most anyone thinks is fun, or fun! -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • So I assume the proposed changed wording is okay with you
    expected conduct? Lourdes
    15:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Lourdes: I don't love it, but it is a bit better. Specifically, I think this is overly broad to include any "participant" (as opposed to just "parties"), but if that is the issue to be decided on then so be it. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Act In Haste, Repent At Leisure springs to mind. The RfC was created, modified, relocated and is now being amended by a random group of editors with or without axes to grind. It's being changed from an RfC to a petition now, is it? Wow, what a shambolic way to make decisions. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I thought I had seen just about everything on Wikipedia, but this really takes the biscuit. We have an arbitrator who posts about a case on a trolling forum because it is not expressly forbidden and another who insists that there is nothing wrong with that. Don't these people have the slightest bit of common sense that would tell them that there is something wrong with that? I'm not pretending to know what should be done about this matter, but I do know that we now have at least two members of the arbitration committee who nobody can trust to behave appropriately in dealing with cases. I hope other more sensible members of that committee will have the guts to come off the fence and say the obvious.
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 15:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I spent ages, with several edit conflicts, fixing this up but was undone by Hemiauchenia with an edit summary expecting me to fix things. No, I do not have more time than you, and you shouldn't expect so.
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 16:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Phil Bridger am I the second arb you refer to in this comment? Because I very much have not insisted that there's nothing wrong with it. I have instead tried to make points about how the intent of this idea could be expressed without hindering the committee and how it can be made clear, under policy, what is happening. Best, Barkeep49 (talk

  ) 15:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, you are not who I was referring to.

  Phil Bridger (talk

  ) 15:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• A comment directed at no one individual but those opposing as a whole - please seriously reconsider whether you are opposing because of how and by whom this was put forth - or whether you're opposing because you actually think it should be acceptable for this sort of behavior to can occur. I've seen people who oppose such a rule (both on this page and elsewhere) saying that they oppose this because it is "retaliatory" - to which I say that if this is simply when this was recognized, then it doesn't matter. Furthermore, even if the exact wording is not something you agree with, remember that this is just a petition for Arbitrators to change their own policy - it is not set in stone, and wording can be discussed - the arbitrators have final say on their policy anyway, so I'm sure they'll do their best to make sure that it captures the community's guidance while not being ambiguous or restrictive outside of reason. Put simply, please rethink whether you actually are okay with this behavior or not - because many opposes say "this shouldn't be necessary to prevent this", yet apparently it is as multiple arbitrators have either violated this or condoned the same. If that's not proof a rule is necessary to codify what should be common sense, I'm not sure what would be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 15:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @

  there are already rules that prohibit arbitrators engaging in the sort of behaviour this proposal is intended to prohibit. Thryduulf (talk

  ) 21:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  My comment was directed at people who opposed because of "poor wording" but appeared to support the idea as a whole. It was not directed at any one oppose vote, but at a trend I identified in the oppose votes, where many of them are based solely on specific wording while still agreeing that it's not okay. I think a new RFC/petition may be necessary yes, due to this, but I figured I'd mention this as a comment. I agree with you that there are already rules prohibiting this - but then why are arbitrators not initiating proceedings against the arbitrator who's already violated this? Either they're too unwilling to investigate one of their own (which is another issue), or maybe (AGFing here) they simply don't realize the community considers this behavior unacceptable. In the second case, this proposal here, where even about half the opposes say "yeah, this shouldn't be okay, but this proposal is unnecessary" - which leads to about a 70-75% community consensus behind the idea that it's not okay (including supports) - this should show them that they need to act on it as a violation of the rules they already have in place. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• @
  Phil Bridger: (and others) is the lack of rules the problem here? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct_of_arbitrators lays out expectations for committee member behavior already (...Act with integrity and good faith at all times..., if there is a serious question about such behavior that the current process incapable of dealing with it? — xaosflux ^Talk
  15:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I do not think that it's the lack of rules that is the problem, but a complete lack of moral compass amongst certain people [in a certain person] who have [has] been elected to pass judgment on us.

  Phil Bridger (talk

  ) 15:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  There is a serious question about such behavior and the current process' ability to deal with it - the current process of arbitrators being unilaterally enabled to decide what is "with integrity and good faith" has obviously failed, since even among oppose !votes many of them express that the act is unacceptable, but this proposal doesn't float their boat. From my reading, at least 70% of people commenting are against arbitrators participating in off-wiki discussion of current cases that they haven't recused from - with varying levels of exception. Not to mention that the arbitrator who spawned all this commented here with basically a this would be hard to enforce, so don't even make it a rule (so I can keep violating the unwritten rule). Not a single arbitrator has proposed a motion, admonishment, or removal of that arbitrator from the committee. As such, it's clear that ArbCom itself is incapable of interpreting "integrity and good faith" as the community wishes them to - because it's clear already that while this exact proposal/wording isn't fully supported, that a decent majority believes that arbitrators should generally not be commenting on active cases off-wiki. So yes, until/unless ArbCom decides to "police its own" and provides public indication they are doing so, this is necessary. Note that I don't personally care what happened in the RexxS case, as that's a separate issue - but the arbitrator(s) actions during and after that case have brought this issue to light. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @

  WP:DR (even by skipping all the way to the end) against a committee member that they think has violated arbcom policy? — xaosflux ^Talk

  18:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  WP:NPA against those who are attempting to tell him he is in the wrong. I am curious what steps other than explicitly requesting ArbCom make this explicitly clear in their policy you think have been skipped? Other noticeboards cannot do anything to remove an arbitrator from their position. To be quite blunt, if ArbCom would step up and initiate a motion to remove or suspend the arbitrator in question, this would be moot for now. That is, until this or another arbitrator thinks it's "acting with integrity" to participate in troll/harassment sites and to discuss active cases they are participating in. That's not integrity in anyone's definition. Sure it's hard to police, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what is obvious and blatant. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!

  ) 19:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Berchanhimez: community members should be able to initiate an arbitration case against an arbitrator as a party to force the issue. If it is a bona fide complaint and the committee declines the case, it should be with a reason why it can actually be handled elsewhere. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, they can do such, but the Committee should also, per their own procedures, be doing this themselves. I suspect that nobody wants to file an arbitration case if the committee should (and might) decide to take action on their own prerogative. Furthermore, this proposal ensures that, even if a case is necessary this time, the arbitrators have encoded in their policies that this sort of behavior is not "integrity and good faith", thus they will never again have to wait for a case to be brought. If you're seriously suggesting that an arbitrator should get away with gross violations of integrity and neutrality by participating in an active case while discussing it with a forum including banned editors - just because nobody has the balls to file an arbitration case against a sitting arbitrator, then that's crazy imo. Nobody wants to have to go through a case - it is a last resort - and I think trying to clarify the arbitration policy (or convince them to take action under current policy) is a last step prior to arbitration itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

​This is a hidden ping to previously commenting editors to inform each one of them that post their comment on this RfC, the original wordings have undergone a change. Importantly, the previously placed question – "Should Arbcom members be restricted from discussing active cases and participants on public forums outside Wikipedia (that is, till the case is closed)?" – has undergone a change. Requesting your eyes on the top once again for your review. Thank you for your consideration. Lourdes

15:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lourdes: When you change existing wording like that, it may be somewhat more clear if you srike the previous text and underline the new text. GMG^talk 16:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right GMG. The issue is, new editors may just get confused seeing significant strikes. I have added the previous query to the hidden ping statement. Apologies for this quick-fix. Lourdes 16:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

convenience break

• I'd like to present a hypothetical scenario for consideration. Let us assume this already passed, and also that I had not recused from the current case request. Now let's say I were to post on one of the Reddit forums dedicated to Wikipedia the following "I was surprised at the sudden accusations of racism". No private info, no personal attacks, just my honest reaction to a weird aspect of a case. By the wording of this rule, I would have broken policy by saying that, but only because I said it where I said it, not because there is anything else at all wrong with it. Is that really something we want to start doing? Who is going to police every single off-wiki forum to make sure no arbs are commenting in any of them in a manner that goes against this gag order? What are the penalties if the gag order is breached?
  talk
  ) 16:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Geez, so because you feel it’d be hard to enforce it shouldn’t be a policy? That’s the complete opposite of acting if integrity - you basically just said “well it’d be difficult to monitor so I can do it!” Absurd. You really need to step back and see that even about half of the opposes here say this is inappropriate behavior for an arbitrator - making it around 70-80% of the community as a whole. Please stop digging and attacking others for attempting to codify what should be common sense - but apparently not your common sense, just everyone else’s. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

    "attempting to codify what should be common sense" this is why

    b

    } 17:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  • OMG I expect arbs to know what discretion is without having the community explain it to them. Ideally arbs who have trouble understanding what discretion is would just resign, and ideally other arbs would encourage them to do so. I would have stayed out of this until I saw that you are still talking about this RFC on WO. It's like a bad addiction to gossip. Stop doing this ffs. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • My point is that this is a half-baked, dangerous proposal with significant risk of needless drama, for little benefit. I also wasn't aware that the gag order has now been expanded (in your mind at least) to include policy proposals.
      talk
      ) 17:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • That you're referring to the concept of exercising some basic discretion as a "gag order"... I'm embarrassed that I voted for you. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

    @Levivich: the point is that this proposal would remove a lot of discretion arbs currently have. Whether it was or was exercised correctly in any given instance is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Exactly. Look, I've heard what people have said. I told Lourdes that I understood her concern and would not make further comments of that nature. So I was a little surprised to see this after that. I am open to criticism, I'm very aware I am not a perfect person. And, should I decide to run again, if this incident tanks my candidacy, so be it. That's fair. But this .... I don't think anyone even knows what this even is at this point, but it was clearly not well thought out before being proposed. Knee-jerk rule making is particularly prone to unintended consequences.
      talk
      ) 18:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I hope it doesn't get so far that we have to find out. The current gig is a joke: started off at AN, now at VPP; started off as an RfC and is now a petition (or is it the other way round?!); started off saying one thing, now says another. Etc. And that's before getting into the weeds of the RexxS context. Still, at least the planning matches the execution. ——Serial 16:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I sort of asked this in my !vote above... but it is worth asking again: Why is this focused purely on Arbitrators? Why not simply say that ANYONE involved in an ongoing ArbCom case (whether they be arbs, disputants, involved editors, etc) should not discuss it outside of approved channels? Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Blueboar, I think that the distinction is primarily about the power imbalance. You wouldn't want a real-world judge live-tweeting about witnesses that appear in a courtroom, or a professional arbitrator gossiping about a divorcing couple on a social media site. That kind of behavior doesn't show respect for either the participants or the process. Editors don't want ArbCom members to treat them disrespectfully when they feel like they're involved in a high-stakes, emotionally charged ArbCom case, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would not want ANYONE involved in an active court case live tweeting about it. Not the judge, not the disputants, not the lawyers... no one. Blueboar (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I also asked about this in my Oppose vote (≠3). What about any involved functionary participating in any formal setting, RfA, 'Crat Chat, AN/ANI? They also contribute at WO. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A more general WP:DECORUM guideline would make more sense than this narrowly-tailored change, which feels half like a vote to admonish Beeblebrox. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

    Half? Vaticidalprophet 22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, I see that Lourdes has "clarified" things for us; this is now both an RfC (requiring a ~two-thirds majority in favour) and a petition (requiring a 100 supports and ignoring opposes). I think we're through the looking glass, people... ——Serial 18:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• On reflection, no, I don't think it's quite as clear cut as Lourdes suggests (perhaps unsurprisingly, as they only highlighted one sentence). It does seem odd, doesn't it, at first glance, that arb com—of all people on the English Wikipedia!—would renounce
  WP:CONSENSUS in favour of brown numbers, and a careful read of ARBPOL supports this interpretation. The first paragraph states: this policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum and will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it(my emph); that makes it clear that the 100 supports must be a majority, not 100 supports regardless of total !vote. Regarding proceedings such as this, it is clear that Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Then comes the line that Lourdes quotes above; but it is clearly intended to be read as continuing the procedure as laid out originally.

  TL;DR: So yeah, consensus still rulez OK, people. ——Serial
  18:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Except this is the first part of a two part process. This is attempting to see if 100 users request the change. Once that happens we have a ratification vote where there is a simple majority approval with at least 100 editors in support. So in that second step opposes would matter but for now we're just seeing if it can get 100 signatures. So the people opposing here are doing so more under "moral oppose" grounds than to actually haven effect. Personally I think the amendment process needs some cleanup - for instance I think there should be time limits so we don't get a Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution situation but have also been of the opinion that it can wait until the next time ARBPOL needs to be amended for something else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm seriously, honestly trying to parse this out. As worded, an active arb could go over to say, Meta, and post about an ongoing case, say some general remark like "this case is not going the way I thought it would." That's allowed, because it's a WMF site. If that same arb were to go make that exact same comment on reddit, that's not allowed, because it is not a WMF site. If the arb in question is recused for any reason, they can go ahead and say the same comment anywhere they like. I'd honestly like to know why an anodyne comment like that is somehow harmful when posted in one place, but not in another, harmful when active, but not when recused.
  talk
  ) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's interesting. You're "seriously, honestly trying to parse this out" yet you've spent the last few days attacking anyone who is trying to explain it. I'm glad you've finally came to the realization that you should be listening and discussing instead of defending. That being said, it's simple: appearances. Wikipedia editors can be expected to have a relatively decent knowledge of the fact that there may be other projects other than the English Wikipedia, and discussing pertinent information to a case on another WMF project is in the spirit of cross-collaboration - for example, cases which have evidence of cross-wiki abuse or would require steward input (removal of bureaucrat, for example). It's not that the comment itself becomes harmful if posted off-wiki, but Wikipedia editors shouldn't have to look off-wiki to find an arbitrator's comments on a case. You signed up to be an arbitrator to serve the community - and part of that is appearing impartial and with "integrity and good faith". If you have opinions that you wish to make off wiki and you don't even let people know on wiki that you're making those comments, it appears very highly that you're either trying to hide something, or have conversations that are not permissible on wiki for whatever reason. I didn't say you are doing either of those, but that is exactly what it appears like. Let's ask you this - point blank - why did you post each post at that forum that you did, instead of holding discussion onwiki? If the answer is because the person you responded to was banned, you shouldn't be discussing your opinions on cases with banned users off wiki and if you have to ask "why not", you shouldn't be an arbitrator. If the answer is because "it was easier", well tough, tell them to come on wiki to discuss the active case with you in the interest of full transparency and record keeping. You have an extra burden to bear as an arbitrator active on a case - you are the judge of someone - and doing things like this seriously calls into question your "integrity and good faith" - even if you don't discuss any private information or remedies specifically. I count a couple dozen users who have at this point said this should be common sense - so I'm sorry, but if you don't get it at this point maybe it's time to step back and reconsider whether you understand what being an arbitrator entails - since you seem to forget that you should be the pinnacle of integrity and transparency if at all possible - which posting off-wiki doesn't provide. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, Serial Number 54129, I think it now makes even less sense. Some of Lourdes' comments (and others') (eg [1][2]) seem to imply some editors think this is going to the Committee who will then draft up a wording and propose it for ratification, but surely that's not what this is? Despite the edits to this proposal, it still feels like the proponents don't really know exactly what they're asking for.
  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Ratification and amendment appears to describe the process for amending the policy. I imagine the community process works something like this: rather than the ArbCom motion method, a specific change (like this) is proposed and at least 100 editors must support that change. That change is then submitted for community (not ArbCom) ratification, which must receive at least 100 supports and a simple majority of supports. But since there's no actual change proposed here, how exactly are we meant to ratify a question? (unless Lourdes expects the RfC closer to write up the text for the change?) And then there's the issues of clarifying niche cases, and deciding what enforcement should be expected (should removal of arbs be invoked for breaches). It doesn't seem like everyone is on the same page with regards to the details here. For amending something as 'professional' and well documented as ArbCom, this whole section has devolved into a bit of a clusterfuck. I'd be surprised if anything productive comes from it, and even if it does it would be far more productive (and time efficient) to withdraw and workshop up a clearer change which addresses the questions/concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• After 17 years editing here, I’m amazed that this debate is even necessary, I always assumed this was a rule. Arbs, their clerks or anyone connected to them should not be discussing any case before, during or after anywhere but on Wikipedia. Any other site (even bona fide associated projects and sites) should be completely off limits for such gossip because once such subjects leave Wikipedia, scurrilous gossip is all it is, and it benefits no one. To be respected and for the Arbitration system to work, Arbs have to be like Caesar’s wife, if that’s too much of a struggle for them, then they need reminding the position is voluntary. Giano (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• As I mentioned in the earlier discussion on this topic: The default assumption is that editors can fully participate in the English Wikipedia community solely through engagement on this website. I think all editors need to be wary of contributing on other venues, including mailing lists, IRC channels, and other websites (including other Wikimedia Foundation websites), in a manner that affects this default assumption. If significant insight, influence, discussion, or other advantages can only be gained by participating elsewhere, I feel this increases the demand on time and access being requested of the community. I don't know if this needs to be written in policy, but I personally think it would be better to avoid changing the baseline for participation. isaacl (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think excessively pushing for a code of silence helps the project or contributors. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

    In my previous comments, I said that in real life, people discuss things in all sorts of places, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nonetheless, I feel editors should be aware of the potential effect of increasing the number of required venues for engagement in order to be full participants in English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• The general principle that has been espoused - arbitrators should act with professionalism and discretion - is critical but the current proposal is flawed in many ways that are certain to make it unsuccessful. If this is revisited in the future, I strongly recommend focusing not on the venue(s) in which we expect arbitrators to be able to discuss active cases but a broader principle of limiting discussions to venues, participants, and topics that are necessary and appropriate for the respectful advancement of the case. Or something along those lines that permit arbitrators to exercise discretion but make clear the parameters and principles that should be involved in their decision. We are all volunteers here but that does not mean we should expect or welcome unprofessional behavior, especially from those in positions of heightened trust and authority. ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Arbitrators must be cautious and discreet in discussing any arbitration business and especially so when pending matters are involved. If anyone thinks a reminder of this precept would be helpful, this discussion (which the Committee members are aware of) has provided it. A formal policy amendment is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, your statement is more than enough for me. We can close this RfC/policy amendment here. Thank you for this. Warmly, Lourdes 04:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)