Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 127

Initiated by Cunard at 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Cunard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• TenPoundHammer notification

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)

• Modify to include a topic ban on proposing an article for deletion and turning an article into a redirect

Previous discussions

This was previously discussed in an amendment request closed on 20 April 2024 and on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests.

Background

Before the 2 August 2022 deletion topic ban, TenPoundHammer nominated numerous articles for proposed deletion and articles for deletion. He also redirected numerous articles in 2022. This link shows the last 500 redirects he did before the 2 August 2022 topic ban. If you search for the text "Tags: New redirect Reverted" on the page, there are 189 results. At least 189 of the redirects he did between April 2022 and July 2022 were reverted.

TenPoundHammer resumed the actions that led me to create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs, which was closed as "This matter has been escalated to the arbitration committee, which has opened a full case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing on this and other related matters" and is cited as "June 2022 ANI" in this finding of fact.

Evidence

I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer on 2 March 2024 about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer to stop blanking and redirecting articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.

TenPoundHammer continued to redirect articles on notable topics. Between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 18 articles. Of those 18 articles, 14 were about television series (a topic I focus on): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. After spending many hours searching for sources, I reverted all 14 redirects and added sources to all 14 articles. For several of the topics (such as Queer Eye for the Straight Girl and Dice: Undisputed), sources could be easily found with a Google search.

Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected three book articles (another topic I focus on): 1, 2, and 3. I reverted the three redirects and added book reviews.

Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 33 articles. Almost all of those redirects are in the music topic area which I do not focus on. I am concerned about the large number of redirects of topics that could be notable.

On 12 April 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected the television show Las Vegas Garden of Love with the edit summary "unsourced since 2010, time to lose it". I found sources for the article and reverted the redirect. I found two of the sources (The New York Times and Variety) on the first page of a Google search for "Las Vegas Garden of Love ABC". TenPoundHammer previously prodded this same article in May 2022, and another editor contested that prodding ("contest PROD, nom nominated 200 articles in a single day so it's impossible a BEFORE was done for each").

Analysis

Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle. Reviewing this volume of redirects consumes substantial editor time. The redirects are leading to numerous notable topics no longer having articles. The redirects prevent the topics from undergoing community review at AfD, which TenPoundHammer is topic banned from.

Blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs. Television-related prods and AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. But blank-and-redirects are not listed anywhere.

It is unclear to me whether the existing topic ban includes proposing articles for deletion. I recommend that the topic ban be expanded to prohibit both proposing articles for deletion and blanking and redirecting pages since there is previous disruptive editing in both areas where he has prodded or redirected a large number of articles about notable topics. This remedy does something similar for a different editor in the same arbitration case.

Here are quotes from three arbitrators about the topic ban in the 2022 proposed decision regarding the redirects and and proposed deletion:

1. "... This TBAN also fails to remedy the issues that appear to be evident with the use of redirects (see Artw's evidence for examples)." (link)

   "... Missing PROD was not intentional on my part but that also can be added." (link)

   • See Artw's evidence about issues with redirects.
2. "First choice, and my interpretation is that this should extend to PROD, given the evidence, even though it seems like a stretch to call most PRODs a discussion. ..." (link)
3. "First choice, extend to PROD." (link)

Cunard (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs since they are not listed on article alerts or deletion sorting. The suspended topic ban motion would put the onus on editors to frequently review Special:Contributions/TenPoundHammer to determine whether the disruptive blank-and-redirects have continued rather than put the onus on TenPoundHammer to make a convincing appeal in the future that the disruptive blank-and-redirects won't continue. I do not want to frequently review TenPoundHammer's contributions as it is time-consuming and leads to responses like this. The disruptive blank-and-redirects happened in 2022 and continued during TenPoundHammer's topic ban appeal. Redirects continued as recently as 6 May here and here, one with an edit summary ("Obvious") that doesn't make it clear that a blank-and-redirect happened. There is no recognition in TenPoundHammer's response here that the blank-and-redirects have been disruptive.

The motion does not address proposed deletions. TenPoundHammer wrote "I assumed I was already topic-banned from PRODding articles", while an arbitrator wrote in the topic ban appeal, "I can't see that the current restriction applies to CSD or PROD and nor does this one." I hope that this amendment request can address the status of proposed deletions as it would be best not to need an additional clarification request asking about that.

I would prefer a motion that adds blank-and-redirects and proposed deletions to the existing topic ban rather than a suspended topic ban. Cunard (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Primefac wrote, "some like Cunard may feel that any BLAR is too much". This is inaccurate as I routinely do blank-and-redirects without prior discussion. BLARs become disruptive when an editor continues doing numerous controversial BLARs despite being asked to stop. The BLARs are controversial because many of the topics are notable and sources can be found on the first page of a Google search.

Regarding "repeatedly asking for the hammer to be dropped until they get their desired response", I raised the conduct issue in the topic ban appeal amendment request, but arbitrators did not substantively discuss it. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests indicated that my filing a new amendment request would not have been considered a duplicate. The arbitrators' responses here generally have not called this a duplicate request. Cunard (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I assumed I was already topic-banned from PRODding articles, so I don't know why that was brought up. (Similarly, I don't know what the ruling is on deprodding but it's historically not been an issue for me, and I personally don't think it would be fair to deny me a chance to say "hey, wait, I can fix this".) Speed has been an issue, as has blunt edit summaries when I redirect something. Lately when I feel there is little to no content to merge, I try to spell out my WP:BEFORE steps in the edit summary when I redirect. I also generally don't unlink the page, to save the hassle if someone like Cunard comes along to revert my redirect and dump in some sources. One reason I don't try to initiate merger discussion is because no matter how hard I try, no one ever seems to respond. Witness Talk:Regis_Philbin#Proposed_merge_of_Joy_Philbin_into_Regis_Philbin, which opened two months ago and has had several reminders, but not a single person has lifted a finger. How long is that discussion going to gather dust? "There is no deadline" doesn't mean "do nothing and hope the problem somehow fixes itself". If I am to be topic-banned from WP:BLARing, then how can I get some action going in merger discussions? Since again, every fucking time I try, nobody acts like I'm even there -- but then two seconds after I give in and finally merge/redirect the damn thing, someone swoops in to revert me. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I am Involved here. TPH and I came up together on this project and occasionally ran into one another on country talk pages although it has been some time since we substantively interacted. I also have the utmost respect for Cunard's research at AfD in that they not only say "sources exist" but find and annotate them for participants to assess. This is especially helpful personally in east Asian language sourcing. That said, Cunard's case here is strong. TPH sees it as their duty to clean up the project, but I don't think their strong feelings are backed by our policies, nor is there a pressing need to remove this content. The project will not collapse and these are mostly not BLPs. If they are, someone else can handle it. I believe TPH's topic ban should be expanded to include BLAR which is a form of deletion. I have no strong feelings on PROD personally. Star Mississippi 01:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggest:

• TPH may not redirect more than one article per day.
• TPH may not PROD more than one article per day.
• For the purposes of this restriction a "day" refreshes at midnight UTC.

• Support expanding the topic ban to BLARs. I really wanted to not do this, but TPH's comments above are very much in WP:IDHT territory. While editors are absolutely allowed to focus on specific aspects of the encyclopedia and its processes, TPH has been here long enough that using Google to assess for sources per BEFORE and including them (even perfunctorily on the talk page for others to edit into the article) rather than redirecting clearly notable topics is a reasonable expectation. Again, BEFORE-ish behavior is neither required nor expected outside TPH's self-chosen context of encyclopedic cleanup. Because using BLARs for deletion is a semi-end-run around the existing topic ban, expecting BEFORE behavior is not a too-restrictive burden. The fact is, TPH has been found to have used other deletion processes without appropriate discretion, and is now shown to have been doing the same thing using a different process. Again, this is not a novel problem, but a topic-banned user who is skating as close as possible to the topic ban and displaying ongoing problematic behavior. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: Billed Mammal: This is not a proposal for a general rule. This is a note that TPH has been engaging in less-than-optimal deletion conduct that, had he continued to engage in it over time, could result in a topic ban, in fact did, and TPH has continued to engage in deletion-like behavior within the limits of that topic ban. I'll note that BLAR notesIf editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Since TPH is topic banned from AfD, nominating contested BLARs for deletion is off the table. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

While a WP:BEFORE search may be a good idea, it isn’t one that there is a consensus to require - and it is one that there shouldn’t be a consensus to require until we place similar requirements, retroactively applying, on the creation of articles.

If we’re going to apply FAIT to the deletion of articles we need to first - and retroactively - apply it to their creation, otherwise we will have a situation where massive numbers of articles have been created in violation of FAIT but are almost impossible to address.

Further, I’m not convinced this is a FAIT issue; addressing previous FAIT issues is not itself a FAIT violation, even if done at a similar scale and rate.

The arbitrators may like to consider the itemized wording of another user's topic ban (linked in Cunard's request) or TenPoundHammer topic banned (2) (did not pass). They both call out article redirection explicitly.

Regarding WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#TenPoundHammer (2018 community topic ban, linked by Maxim), its closing statement does not mention redirects, and the closer clarified them as excluded within a few weeks.

I found four related diffs – none involving redirects – in Special:PageHistory/Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. They are consistent with WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence#TenPoundHammer has been subject to ANI discussion on multiple occasions.

1. Enacted January 2018
2. Exception added February 2018
3. Reduced/replaced August 2018
4. Removed October 2019

Redirecting a page is not deletion.

• WP:Redirect#Redirects that replace previous articles (guideline, shortcut WP:BLAR):If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted.
• WP:Deletion policy#Redirection (policy, shortcut WP:ATD-R) is a subsection under Alternatives to deletion.
• Cunard was able to revert TenPoundHammer's redirects without adminstrator assistance.

Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I find the examples of WP:BLAR that Cunard presents to be troubling forms of deletion when taken in the full context. Cunard often presents more obscure sources or coverage that can be rather short but that is certainly not the case with several of the examples shown here. As noted in the case WP:BEFOREis not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources. but for this editor, with this past, the lack of BEFORE when some high quality sourcing was available strikes me as an issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• TenPoundHammer was topic banned because of disruptive behavior in AfD discussions as well as issues around the closing of discussions. While Cunard has presented a not-unreasonable concern that TPH might not be the best at finding sources for articles, I am not seeing any major issues with conduct around the blank-and-redirect issue; redirects that have been reverted tend to stay reverted, without evidence of argument or backlash. These redirects also appear to be made in good faith. In other words, I do not think we are at the point where the BLAR activity by TenPoundHammer has reached a "disruptive editing" or "conduct-unbecoming" level that would require further sanctions. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• I would support expanding the topic ban --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm sympathetic to Primefac's analysis, but I draw a different conclusion. There is an existing topic ban from deletion discussions, and while it is not explicitly "broadly construed", and nor does blanking and redirect truly fall under "discussion", I think there is a reasonable concern raised to do with TenPoundHammer and the deletion process. In a different context, I would be more amenable to treating the situation as not-quite-yet disruptive editing or conduct unbecoming, but considering the existing topic ban, as well as a previous community sanction to ban TenPoundHammer from all deletion activities, I'm in favour of expanding the topic ban, potentially to cover deletion activities similarly to the community sanction. Maxim (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Enacted - HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

1. No concerns with Barkeep's change in wording. In case it wasn't clear before, I support this motion. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Support - I generally don't like complicated sanctions, but the evidence presented does suggest an issue needing resolution, and jumping straight to an active TBAN doesn't seem warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
3. Per my comment below. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
4. Per my comments elsewhere in this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
5. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• This has been posted here for a long time, and I want to get this moving. TPH seems to have stopped the WP:BLARing behaviour that led to the disruption, as the last instance I can find is May 4. However, I would like to propose a motion to get this closed but also allow for a faster response if this happens again. The idea for this type of motion was suggested by another arbitrator, so I cannot take credit for it:

Other arbitrators feel free to modify the wording or to propose another motion below. Z1720 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I know I said it above but I am not at a point where a sanction is necessary. There is also the issue of deciding what "disruption by BLARing" means; some like Cunardeditors may feel that any BLAR is too much, where editors like myself may find the current non-response to reverted BLARing to be a perfectly acceptable part of the BOLD editing process. I also do not know if we should open the door for someone repeatedly asking for the hammer to be dropped until they get their desired response. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Updated, unfair to Cunard to call them out like this. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I've done some wordsmithing here. I think I can live with this restriction on this editor given their track record with deletion and related processes (which I see as including BLAR). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this a proportionate sanction and am willing to support it. I think some of the provided examples aren't completely damning-- I have some more expertise in music and I would say the majority of the redirects done for non-notable low charting singles and comps make sense, but there's enough questionable ones all in all to impose this given the history. My advice to TPH would be to practice merging more-- for example, I think that a redirect of Dice: Undisputed-- a minor reality TV series-- to the biography of Clay is reasonable if the cited sources were used to contextualize it within his biography. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by Ivanvector at 13:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

WP:ARBECR

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Ivanvector (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Valereee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• PicturePerfect666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bugghost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yoyo360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Valereee
• PicturePerfect666
• Bugghost
• Yoyo360

This request concerns the extended confirmed restriction and its applicability to complaints about user conduct within an affected topic.

A few days ago, editor BugGhost initiated a complaint at ANI regarding editor PicturePerfect666's conduct in discussions at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024 (ANI permalink). The complaint was entirely focused on PicturePerfect666's allegedly tendentious conduct with regard to information critical of Israel's participation in the song contest, reflective of real-world criticism and activism regarding Israel's ongoing invasion of Palestine. BugGhost specifically asked that PicturePerfect666 be topic banned. Since BugGhost is not extendedconfirmed, and the complaint entirely concerns conduct within that topic, I advised that the complaint could not proceed, but made no comment on its merit.

My rationale for closing is that non-extendedconfirmed editors are not permitted to edit in topics where ARBECR has been imposed in good faith, other than talk page edit requests, therefore (in my view) since a conduct complaint is not an edit request, it is not permitted for non-extendedconfirmed editors to file them regarding conduct within the topic, nor to comment on them. On this I would like clarification, because I agree with some implicit criticism on my talk page that it is unreasonable.

I have listed Valereee as a party because she added the contentious topics notice to the talk page on 28 December 2023 (diff), but she is not involved at all in the incidents described. PicturePerfect666 and BugGhost should be self-explanatory, and Yoyo360 is an extendedconfirmed editor who asked about "adopting" (my words) BugGhost's complaint.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland is referring to an earlier ANI filing which is also related to this same situation. An administrator not named here removed one comment by a non-EC editor from the Eurovision talk page. Seeing this, PicturePerfect666 then took it upon themselves to remove other comments from non-EC editors; Yoyo360 objected to one of their comments being removed, and that led PicturePerfect666 to file the complaint that Sean.hoyland is referring to. At the time that I reviewed that ANI complaint, Yoyo360 had 491 edits on this wiki (and as I mentioned, roughly 25,000 on French Wikipedia) and there were no other issues with their edits besides technically violating ARBECR, so it seemed to me that a reasonable way to resolve the complaint was to grant the clearly experienced editor EC "early". Had I not done so they would have been automatically granted EC by the software with 9 more edits, which they achieved later that day anyway. I don't think that this is relevant to the clarification request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

BugGhost is very clearly a new user interested in contributing to Wikipedia in good faith, even if we don't assume they are (which is still a policy by the way). We told them that they can't edit the topic they're interested in (a music competition, of all things) until they have 500 edits. They accepted that and went off to find something else to do, and now we're saying "oh, those 500 edits aren't the right kind of edits, do 500 more". And their response to that is still not complaining, they're just asking what they can do better. Well, what is it, then? Or are we just going to let them flail about the project for a while until they ask again and we still say no? How many more edits are we going to demand before we accept that they're here to contribute? How long before their already exemplary patience runs out, and they decide Wikipedia isn't worth the effort? What is the point of this exercise if it's not moving the goalposts just so that a genuinely interested new user can't participate? And for what? ECR is meant to prevent disruption, just like all of our enforcement mechanisms; our rules are not meant to be enforced just because they exist, and no rule should exist in the first place if it's only used to gatekeep portions of the encyclopedia to users we individually approve. This policing of new users' edits isn't teaching anyone anything other than that Wikipedia hates new users, and it's doing far more harm to the project than any newbie with a spellchecker has ever done nor will do.

@Bugghost: I am sorry for my role in this pointless focus on your edit count overshadowing your genuine complaint about an (allegedly) properly disruptive user. You're not the problem here. The Wikipedia that I've given nearly 15 years to is better than this, and it will be there waiting for you on the other side. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

As the newbie here that this request is concerning, I'm not completely certain what kind of comment is expected of me here, so I apologise if anything I say is irrelevant or out of scope.

Before writing the AN/I, I looked at the ARBECR guidelines and didn't see any wording that said that my filing was against the spirit of it. My interpretation was that AN/I wasn't a page related to any specific contentious topic, and the filing I was making was about a specific user's conduct, not about the contentious topic itself, and so it wasn't against the spirit of the restriction. I still stand by that - I made sure that my filing did not in any way weigh in on arguments of the related contentious topic at hand, just the behaviour of the user as shown by their edits. My filing was neutral on the contentious topic itself, without editorialising and without any discussion of assumed motive behind the behaviour - only their edits were brought forward.

A consequence from this closure is that raising an AN/I about someone who is being disruptive on a contentious issue is harder than raising an AN/I about someone who is being disruptive on a non-contentious issue. If PicturePerfect666's disruptive behaviour on the Eurovision page was instead about a different topic (say, the Dutch entrant's surprise disqualification), then an AN/I filing from myself would have gone ahead, because that part of the page is not under the ARBECR. But seeing as they were disruptive about a contentious issue, they have been able to deflect my concerns - which seems counter to the ARBECR's aims of reducing disruption on contentious topics.

I think that the ARBECR is a good idea but can be hard to interpret, and has the ability to dismiss reasonable well intentioned actions. In my view, it can contradict the "assume good faith" mantra, as assumption that I filed the AN/I accurately and in good faith was "trumped" by the fact my edit count being too low. As I said on IvanVector's talk page, I spent a long amount of time compiling a long list of the user's disruptive behaviour for the filing, including very specific diffs to outline each example, and it being dismissed based wholly on my edit count was very demoralising. As backed up by Yoyo360 suggestion to "adopt" it, the AN/I has some merits worth considering. BugGhost🎤 16:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

RE: @Bishonen's gaming concerns - I have been doing typo fixing recently, but it's worth noting that I started doing this on the 24th of May (not on the 19th, the day I received the EC notification, as was suggested). After I received the EC notification, I simply stopped interacting with the Eurovision talk page, as was suggested by the admin that posted it, and focused on my editing priorities (mainly the WPF article, as @Novem Linguae mentioned in their comment - which is where I have spent the vast majority of my time as an editor, far more than Eurovision or typo-fixing).

I want to stress that I have been doing these typo changes as a real task and in good faith. It's true that before this I hadn't done any large-scale spelling based changes, but as a relatively new user, I have been doing a lot of "firsts" recently.

I wasn't doing these changes in secret - I added this mission to my userpage, added it to the adopt-a-typo page, have suggested a page with 'pre-determined' in the title to be moved, and gave advice to a new editor who was prone to typos. I was under the impression that this was a regular Wikipedia-editor task, based on the adopt-a-typo page, the wikignome page, and seeing other editors with repeated spell-checking edits in their user contribs.

I know how this will sound given the circumstances, but I actually stopped doing typo changes yesterday (when I was at roughly 450 edits) because I thought if I hit 500 while this situation was happening it would only complicate matters, and went back to slower-paced editing instead in order to not become extended confirmed. I also have no desperate need to hit 500, because PP666 has not been disruptive since the AN/I was filed, and it sounds like Yoyo360 would have "re-raised" my AN/I whether I became EC or not, and overall the Eurovision page is solving the disruption problems without any input from me. I started typo-fixing after the point "gaming the system" would have been useful to me.

Regarding whether "pre-determined" is a typo - I researched it to double check prior to fixing, and found multiple sources implying that it should be unhyphenated as one word [1] [2], and similarly for "pre-suppose", as the rule (as I understand), is that you hyphenate "pre-" only when the following word begins with an E or I sound, or if it's a new compound not itself in the dictionary (eg. "pre-dinner snack"). I do 100% understand Bishonen's concerns though, and seeing as there's questions about my motives, and whether it's even a typo, I won't resume these edits until I get some go-ahead that it's ok to do.

BugGhost🪲👻 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have much to add actually. I don't edit much on wiki:en, I'm mostly watching the talk pages of the Eurovision wikiproject to inspire me on the French-language counterpart (which is quasi inactive). I only come in when discussions have relevance for topics I also could add on wiki:fr and I noticed PP666 behaviour in the past weeks. I concur with everything BugGhost noted in their AN/I, they argued the case way better than I ever could. Noticing the topic had been closed due to the extended confirmed restrictions, I put myself forward to push the AN/I to be treated (as I now have the EC status on wiki:en) asking if it could be reopened in my name. I even have a few things to add to it but that's rather minor compared to the rest and off-topic here I think. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

My rationale for closing is that non-extendedconfirmed editors are not permitted to edit in topics where ARBECR has been imposed in good faith, other than talk page edit requests, therefore (in my view) since a conduct complaint is not an edit request, it is not permitted for non-extendedconfirmed editors to file them regarding conduct within the topic, nor to comment on them That is my experience, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#Selfstudier "As a non-EC editor, you essentially have no standing to make edits related to the topic. You can make an edit request, but any other editor can remove it, even without providing reason. Further, making a complaint against another editor as a non-EC editor in the WP:ARBPIA area is fully not allowed."· So I would agree, it's only logical. Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the closing was entirely appropriate and I agree with Selfstudier's statement. However, I think it is fair to say that the situation with respect to Yoyo360 at the time of the complaint posted by PicturePerfect666 at ANI is more complicated than "Yoyo360 is an extendedconfirmed editor". They were granted the privilege early (from an enwiki perspective) because, as the log says, they are a "10-year-old user with over 25,000 edits across all projects". This seems reasonable, pragmatic and it resolved the issue (although I'm sure imaginative people could cite it as yet another example of anti-Israel bias or rewarding complainers etc.), but for me, it's another reminder that none of us really know (based on evidence) the best way to implement/enforce EC restrictions in ARBPIA, how strictly they should be implemented, and that there is a lot of (costly) subjectivity and fuzziness involved at the moment. This is by no means a criticism or an endorsement of anything that happened in that thread by the way. I have no idea how to figure out how EC rules should work in practice to produce the best result. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

On gaming, as far as I can tell (in ARBPIA anyway), the notion of gaming to acquire the EC privilege only becomes useful after a person has become extendedconfirmed and you can see what they did with it. Statements about potential gaming before someone has reached 500 edits are usually not verifiable (e.g. unreliable inferences about intent) and not based on agreed methods to reliably distinguish between gaming edits and normal edits (probably because we can't really do that without the benefit of post-EC hindsight). It's true that gaming happens in ARBPIA and that the gaming vs non-gaming signals can sometimes be distinguished, e.g. here, where all of the plots that look like gaming, anonymized ARBPIA editors 2,5,6 and 7, are for editors blocked as sockpuppets. But regardless, I don't think there is much utility in raising gaming questions until after someone becomes extendedconfirmed and there is post-EC activity evidence to look at. To do so asks questions that can't be answered without a lot of handwaving fuzziness about revision size, necessity, constructiveness, gnoming-ness, character witness-like statements etc. AGF until there is a reason not to seems like the best approach to gnoming-like pre-EC edits. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll add some quick responses to Ivanvector's kindness and frustration from a different perspective (as someone only active in ARBPIA nowadays, and not to make content edits).

• "no rule should exist in the first place if it's only used to gatekeep portions of the encyclopedia to users we individually approve." - WP:SOCK could be considered to be an example of such a rule. Many of the "interested in contributing to Wikipedia"/collateral damage-type arguments used against ARBECR could also be used against SOCK if you only consider the edits and exclude value judgements of the person making the edits. But the SOCK rule is enforced pretty consistently even though it is often much harder to tell whether someone is a sock than whether they are extendedconfirmed or their action complies with ARBECR, and even though it is probably not possible to measure whether blocking socks has a net positive or net negative impact on content etc.
• "it's doing far more harm to the project than..." This might be true, but I've not seen any evidence that anyone knows how to measure it. I have a more positive view, probably because I'm only active in ARBPIA where the costs of not having or not enforcing the rules are obvious. To me, the benefits seem to outweigh the costs, with the caveat that most of the harm is probably not visible. The rules also introduce new costs because, although 'edit request' points at WP:EDITXY, what constitutes an edit request is, in practice, in the eye of the beholder. This might be bad, or good. Hard to tell.
• I think ToBeFree's view that "This may be unfair or unreasonable in individual cases without being a general problem" applies to the arbitration remedies for ARBPIA in general.
• If there are better solutions, they could be proposed and tested. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

After Bugghost was informed on May 19 about the EC restriction on Eurovision Song Contest 2024 and told they had "nowhere near 500 edits", they have started what looks like an attempt to game the 500 edits restriction by doing a lot of simple spelling corrections and are by this means now rapidly approaching the 500. In many cases the changes aren't even corrections — they changed the form pre-determined to predetermined in hundreds of articles yesterday, even though both forms are acceptable, and similarly changed lots of instances of pre-suppose to presuppose, where also both forms are acceptable. They made no spelling-"correction" edits before they were made aware of the EC rule for the Arab–Israeli conflict. I like to AGF, but this is ridiculous. See WP:GAME. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC).

Bugghost has been rewriting the article Windows Presentation Foundation over the last week or so. In my mind he is a talented newer editor that is doing good content creation and article cleanup work. In light of the gaming concerns above, I'd like to make sure the positive aspects of this editor are also considered. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• One of the issues that led to ECR applying the way it does in this topic area were attempts by new accounts to weaponize our enforcement mechanisms. So while Eurovision 2024 as a whole does not, in my opinion, fall into ECR, edits relating to Israel's participation does as it is clearly WP:BROADLY construed in the topic area. As such non-ECR may not make enforcement requests There's also the past precedent of ArbCom granting ECR to people it was permitting to participate in an arbitraton process that would otherwise be ECR. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Beyond what others have stated, let's not lose eye on the ball here: if there is gaming (and I agree on the whole with the analysis that there is not) it's to edit a particular part of a Eurovision article and not say Israel–Hamas war. I'm not pretending that there is nothing contentious about Israel's participation in Eurovision 2024 but even with a contentious topic area there are differing levels of things. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• The closure text at [3] appears to be correct. This may be unfair or unreasonable in individual cases without being a general problem to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues above: The ECR restriction is to prevent weaponization. It is also to encourage new users to get experience with Wikipedia policies and processes before filing accusations. If someone with ECR wants to adopt it, that is their prerogative, but they will also take responsibility for the filing. I have no concerns with this Ivanvector's close at ANI. I agree that Eurovision 2024 as a whole is not under ARBECR, but topics about Israel/Palestine are. Bugghost I encourage you to return to editing at a quicker pace if you desire, as you obtaining the ECR user right while this is open will not concern me. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Concur with the views above; I would just add that as I see it I do entirely agree with Ivanvector's statement thatBugGhost is very clearly a new user interested in contributing to Wikipedia in good faith. firefly ( t · c ) 18:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I also agree with my colleagues, and am concerned as Ivanvector is that participants here are moving the goalposts inappropriately. It was a policy-backed close of an otherwise good-faith report from an editor who is well-meaning but has not yet met the Extended Confirmed level of participation. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• The way the restriction is currently worded and the way it is handled in practice (for example granting EC so that editors can participate in case requests) is in line with how Ivanvector closed the AN/I report. The first sentence in the report establishes that PIA is a major factor of the AN/I report itself, falling within its scope. - Aoidh (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by HouseBlaster at 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. § Contentious topic designation

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• HouseBlaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• § Contentious topic designation

• Split into two separate CTOP designations

The Manual of Style and Article title policy are jointly authorized contentious topics. Speaking for myself, I have {{Contentious topics/aware|mos}} on my talk page, because I was (and am) aware that the MOS is a CTOP. I was unaware until earlier today that article titles are also a CTOP bundled with the MOS CTOP, even though I was technically aware of the article title CTOP.

It seems that others are also unaware (in the conventional sense) that article titles are CTOPICs; at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions it was about three days and 26KB of discussion before Guerrillero pointed out that article titles are already designated as a CTOP.

The MOS and article titles are related, but distinct, issues. I think they should be split into seperate CTOPs to reflect the fact that they are distinct issues. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardinggiv[ing] administrators an awful lot of discretion, I think that is the point of CTOPs: they give a lot of discretion to admins in areas that have historically been problematic. If admins abuse that discretion, that is a separate problem. We already have at least one CTOP (infoboxes) which covers particular discussions about an article rather than the article itself. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Barkeep's comment, I should have been aware (in the conventional sense) that I was indicating AWAREness of article titles. That was completely my mistake. However, I still find it strange that this is a double-topic CTOP, and it is weird that I have to notify people who have never interacted with the MOS about its designation as a CTOP because they are involved in a dispute concerning article titles (or vice versa). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Splitting the remedy is probably more trouble than it's worth. But while we're here: there hasn't been a logged sanction under this case since 2020, and that's probably because its scope is so narrow that most title- or MOS-related disruption isn't covered. Honestly there's a strong argument for just repealing it altogether, although the timing may not be right for that. An alternative would be to expand it to include RMs and the like (certainly there have been plenty of issues there), but that would give administrators an awful lot of discretion. The status quo of having the CTOP cover just the policy/guideline pages (which are often less contentious than the RMs) doesn't really make sense to me, though, and the lack of use suggests it's not doing much of value. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose splitting them, because the application of the MOS guidelines to the article titles policy was a large part of the controversy that caused me to file the case in the first place. See also Comet Hale–Bopp. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse, obviously. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm not actually sure that the sanction from 2020 qualified under the scope of these sanctions. I would ping the admin who placed them but that admin is me (I thought they did at the time but have since come to doubt that). That said I've resisted including these when we've proposed areas to rescind because I know controversey remains. So where that leaves us here, I'm not sure, other than I wouldn't want to split them. In terms of not understanding their scope, the awareness template mentions Manual of Style and Article Topics so I think understanding that scope matters for the person saying their aware? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with Extraordinary Writ that splitting this CTOP is more trouble than it is worth. I would be willing to rescind the CTOP for article titles, as MOS pretty much covers the same territory. If there is still controversy in this area as Barkeep suggests, then it seems like the CTOP is not addressing the concerns if it is not being used. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• If it's an issue of the wording of the CTOP being ambiguous then that should be clarified, but the MoS and the Wikipedia:Article titles policy both are similar enough that I don't think they need to be split. If there's evidence that the scope isn't working that should be addressed by expanding or narrowing it. - Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with what Aoidh has said-- I understand why this was filed and the rationale for splitting them, but I think it might overcomplicate things. I think this is a useful CT regime to have otherwise, but I'm open to amending it if there's evidence of issues with the application/scope. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm generally fine with the existence of WP:CT/MOS and no change appears to be happening, so I think this should be closed without action for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• I would also support closing this without action, I think the comments above from my colleagues cover everything. firefly ( t · c ) 15:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by Jéské Couriano at 16:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Contentious topic designation

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Contentious topic designation

• Adding the 500/30 rule specifically to the India military regiments topic area (defined as List of regiments and corps of the Indian Army and any page that is or could potentially be listed there)

Over the past month or so we've been having members of the Indian Armed Forces either editing or attempting to create articles concerning military regiments in India. It's only recently come to light that this is a concerted effort by the Indian Army itself; practically all accounts involved have failed to disclose their connexions and very few have used their talk pages (and those that do tend to describe it as an order from higher up that they don't really have a choice but to obey). I'm not as concerned about the drafts, as they're G5-eligible. What I am concerned about are the pages already in mainspace that have been targeted by this campaign, such as 1889 Missile Regiment (India) and a host of others; see User:Jéské Couriano/2024 Indian Military Regiment Spam for a more complete list. I'm seeking to have the 500/30 rule apply specifically in the Indian military regiments topic area to stymie editing of this sort and to force these editors to the talk pages of the articles to make their case.

@Guerillero: The community has been playing whac-a-mole and finding both older accounts and created-in-the-past-12-hours accounts on a daily basis, which get listed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT on discovery. The drafts as I said are easily dealt with, but there's little the community can really do to stop the article editing other than roll dice on protection (which will likely be ECP, due to the age and habits of several of these accounts) as the accounts appear to be under orders to violate WP:OWN and there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit. All we know is it's going to be about an Indian military regiment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like page protection is already available in the standard set of CTOP restrictions, and the Committee has confirmed in the past that 30/500 is included in that. Protecting such a large number of articles might be slightly stretching the intended limits of what a single administrator can do, but since page restrictions may be imposedto minimize disruption in a contentious topic rather than disruption on a single page, it seems like it would be valid. Unless the Committee disagrees with my interpretation, I'd be willing to temporarily ECP the necessary pages. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Has the community gotten a chance to resolve this issue? If not, I am inclined to deny the request --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that 500/30 is the right response to this disruption. However, IPA along with PIA and EE are topics where I don't really expect much community attempts at resolution prior to arbcom given the nature of those disputes on and off wiki. So I am open to doing something here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• While I know we generally protect pages as a result of disruption and not pre-emptively, I think the argument could be made that because of past disruption at related pages, it is not unreasonable to extend that protection to a class of article (in this case Indian military articles). In other words, would ECP across all of the related pages solve this issue? WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would solve the issue because the edits/editors are already being reverted on-sight, and it is really meant more to restrict all editing to those who have been around for a while. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Primefac with questioning the efficacy of this proposed solution. Jéské Couriano's assessment thatthere's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit means that short of applying ECP to most or all of the articles in this topic area (which isn't reasonable) WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would address the issue. It would, however, create more barriers to other editors who would like to edit those articles. - Aoidh (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• I think I agree with my colleagues above. I am not sure that ECP to a broad number of pages is the solution. I think asking to protect individual pages is the way to go here. I don't think there is much more to do here. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• My opinion is to decline any action at this time. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's fairly standard meatpuppetry but being carried out on an Indian Army-wide basis. ArbCom intervention seems overkill. Cabayi (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by Clovermoss at 16:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Noleander arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Clovermoss (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hydrangeans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FyzixFighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ghosts of Europa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pbritti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HaeB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

This case was recently linked in a disagreement over at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Distinguishing characteristic of this church. Horse Eye's Back asked if an editor was a member of the church here and Hydrangeans linked to the above case here. Responses were [14][15]. I'm not trying to open a case request about LDS editing but simply clarify if there is a COI exemption under principle 9. I think COI concerns qualify as a legitimate purpose. But I also don't think that a person editing an article about their perceived religious beliefs is inherently a COI that needs to be disclosed per WP:EXTERNALREL. I think there needs to be a higher bar than "you're editing this article. Are you x?" [16] Therefore I think there's some vagueness here that should be clarified.

@Horse Eye's Back: Can you provide a diff for your assertion here? I have the page on my watchlist and I did not see a comment like that by Awilley. It's possible I missed something while reading recent comments. I also ask that you refrain from saying stuff like this because it can give other editors like me the false impression that you mean this more generally. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible you mean this comment? [17] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This issue has broader implications in the community. I link to a discussion about that in my "are you x?" statement above. There, an editor saidThey're all variations on the same theme: asking personal information under the guise of asking about COI. (I'll note that this is part of a comment made by User:Tryptofish and they've commented that they think this is a community issue below). I think it's important to clarify the threshold for when asking or stating that editors must disclose said information lies. I understand why editors are hesitant to restrict such questions but I also think there has to be a line somewhere. This principle would suggest there is. Given that there was an ANI discussion where this principle was mentioned in a completely different matter a few days ago, I think that it's going to be continued to be used by editors unless ArbCom decides to clarify this one way or another. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Clovermoss was not an involved party and consulted with exactly none of the involved parties is not strictly correct. I wrote a comment in that talk page discussion before that exchange happened. [18] I've also had that page on my watchlist for quite some time and occasionally participate in discussions there. I rarely edit LDS topics directly. As far as I can remember, this is the most substantial edit I have ever made to the article in question [19]. My interest is mostly explained by how the LDS share some similarities with Jehovah's Witnesses and more broadly, the Bible Student Movement. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Also the newly added parties by Horse Eye's Back makes this three recent disputes entirely unrelated to each other that have involved people mentioning this principle. I think clarification is a good idea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to bring greater attention to the discussions that FyzixFighter linked that show the community has already discussed this to some extent. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that (a) religious faith is not disconfirming for editing material relevant to that faith tradition but (b) it is not not disconfirming either. For me, in an ideal world, Wikipedia would stick to these general principles:

1. Wikipedians should be under no obligation to identify their faith tradition. There is no religious test for editing Wikipedia.
2. Wikipedians should be allowed to ask whether another editor has a faith tradition without being accused of violating WP:NPA. To pretend that the religious faith of an editor is never relevant is just as problematic as arguing that it is always relevant.
3. When an editor makes an edit that appears to another editor to violate general editorial principles of this website in favor of an approach preferencing a certain religious faith position, it should not be out-of-bounds in editorial discussion to make this point. Having an argument or edit criticized for such should not necessarily be considered a personal attack.
4. To the extent that people feel like they may be subject to personal attack in these contexts, it would be helpful if they communicated this to the person that they feel attacked them. WP:CIVILity as a principle works best when people are honest about the impact of various statements on them rather than appealing to generalized standards that are not necessarily shared across the wide communities that Wikipedia encompasses.

I know that my position is likely the minority one, but I still maintain that this is a better system than the current Don't Ask, Don't Tell-like approaches others seem to favor.

jps (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

On whether religious background constitutes a COI requiring disclosure and therefore should be exempt from the expectation in principle 9 of Noleander, I'd point out a recent ANI thread (permalink; for transparency it was a thread I commented in) in which users described as disruptive behavior an editor acting on a belief that being Muslim constituted a conflict of interest with Islam (primarily in the context of how that editor assessed the independence of academically published authors, though OP also brought up that the editor implied Muslim users should be disregarded in discussions about Muslim topics) (the editor was ultimately topic banned from pages about Islam; other reasons expressed included POV editing, and Noleander was also cited). This suggests that considering religious affiliation a COI requiring disclosure, as Horse Eye's Back claims (clarify your COI, if you are a member of this faith you do need to disclose that), isn't an interpretation broadly shared by the community and that some consider such an interpretation disruptive.

I'm inclined to Ghosts of Europa's point that treating religious background (or racial or ethnic background for that matter, the other examples in Noleander) as a COI, expecting it to be disclosed, and considering questions about such unproblematic has an unproductive chilling effect. Whatever the intent behind such questioning, its outcome can result in circumventing the process of achieving consensus in discussions by focusing on participants' perceived backgrounds instead of focusing on content.

While Noleander recognizes the possibility that posing a reference or question could inrare casesclearly serve a legitimate purpose, it must do so clearly, and in most cases—including this case—it's possible, and more relevant, to focus on content, making personal questions about one's background unnecessary and inappropriate. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:someone going to certain Church and paying their dues may fall under WP:COI per "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI.". Being a member of a religious organization is not different from being a member of any other private or public organization, and as such can trigger WP:COI. I'd agree it's not necessarily different from being a member of other organizations but with the opposite conclusion. The quoted sentence from WP:COI is followed by a reminder thatHow close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. To consider affiliation a COI of concern to Wikipedia and therefore requiring disclosure would seem to imply that donating and/or newsletter-receiving members of political parties have a COI (and so users voting Democrat/Republican should disclose before editing Franklin D. Roosevelt/Abraham Lincoln?), or that a user who pays the monthly unlimited ride fare for the MTA has a COI (and so shouldn't edit articles about New York subways?) (with apologies for the US-centric examples).

Even that train of thought aside, in the ANI threat I referenced, there were editors who rejected this thinking (as aforementioned, mostly in the context of assessing sources, but COI as a user was also brought up; a user [linked at 'editors'] expressed belief that an employee of a mosque has a COI with that mosque but that being a practicing Muslim wasn't in itself an actionable COI with Islam). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The question in general appears to me to be whether or not COI provides cover for asking for another editor's religious affiliation, contrary to principle 9 here. Such a question assumes that there is necessarily a contradiction between the two, and I would argue there is none. First, multiple discussions on WP:COIN and the policy talk page of WP:COI have agreed that membership in a religion does not rise to the level of a required disclosure of COI. See for example Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Updated proposed text for a shorter and clearer COI guideline, Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 34#Religious COI, Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 31#Clearer on religious background, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Question about whether being a former member of a religion counts as a COI. I can find no instances where the community has said that being a member of a religion, current or former, is a reportable COI. Second, even if religious affiliation did require disclosure (and again there is no evidence the community considers this to be the case), the process for dealing with an undisclosed COI does not involve demanding or referencing the suspected religious background. Rather, per WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest, the correct process is to ask the user on their talk page if they have an undisclosed COI relative to the article subject. If that fails to resolve the issue, the next step is to take it to WP:COIN. Just as there is no necessary contradiction between WP:OUTING and WP:COI, there is no contradiction here.

With regards to this instance in particular, it has been noted in multiple places, including a ANI discussion earlier this year, that Horse Eye's Back's "interpretation of COI is way too expansive" than that defined in WP:COI. While Horse Eye's Back references COI, his description of the situation appears to be rather a concern of bias and advocacy. Most advocacy does not involve COI (such as, as noted previously, religious background), and is better addressed via WP:NPOVN instead of a discussion-chilling ultimatum that another editor self-OUT in the name of COI. Even if this did fall under COI, the proper process would have been to use Awilley's user talk page, ask if they had an undisclosed COI relative to the page (a simple yes/no question that does not require someone to self-OUT), and then go to COIN if there is additional question or concern. Horse Eye's Back is aware of this process and it has been pointed out to them multiple times previously. And yet, they continue to choose not to follow it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read the Noleander case or even the follow-up conversation on the LDS talk page. I saw that there was a content dispute there the other day over the 1st sentence, so I chipped in with my 2 cents.

What seems to have triggered this was my lighthearted reaction to the hypothetical Q&A about how we should be introducing readers to unfamiliar topics in the first sentence. So the Q's are what questions the reader might have, and the A's are how we might be trying to answer those questions in the first sentence. Horse's Eye Back had proposed the following Q&A:

• Q: What is LDS?
  A: It's a church.
• Q: What kind of church?
  A: The Mormon kind.
• Q: Oh, how is it different from other Mormon churches I've heard of?
  A: It's Nontrinitarian.

I responded with:

This is true. If you break down the sects that claim Joseph Smith as founder, you get the following:

The Community of Christ (#2) does not fit into what we usually call "Mormonism". They never adopted the early "Mormon" tradition of polygamy, and because of the Utah polygamy, they did everything they could to distance themselves from that branch, including rejecting the name "Mormon". There are also doctrinal differences. (They're trinitarian, Mormonism is nontrinitarian. Mormons accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, CoC not so much.)

That leaves us with Group #1 and Group #3. Group #3 as a whole is universally referred to as "Mormon Fundamentalism". Many of these groups continue to practice polygamy. If styleguides mention these groups, they're usually telling us not to refer to these small branches as "the Mormon Church".

The TLDR is: the words "Mormon Church" unambiguously refer to the LDS Church, even though the LDS Church rejects that title. That's what you'll find in pretty much any source that uses the term (which many don't). And that was the point I was trying to make with my lighthearted comment above. You don't need to differentiate the 99.75% from the 0.25% in the first sentence.

I don't really understand why HEB immediately assumed that was "bigotry" or why they're still making such a big deal out of this comment. I was just going to ignore it and move on, but now that we're here, I hope my statement helps clarify the matter. ~Awilley (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back

The Lead of Community of Christ (250,000 members, and by far the second largest group in the LDS Movement) says:

"While it generally rejects the term Mormon to describe its members, the church abides by a number of theological distinctions unusual outside Mormonism..."

Brittanica is more direct:

"The Community of Christ does not accept the appellation Mormon because of the association with polygamy."

which is basically what I said above.

Our article on The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) (the largest afaict of the churches you linked, with 23,000 members) says:

"Although the church acknowledges the Book of Mormon to be scripture, it does not consider itself to be a "Mormon church" as it is distinct from the largest Latter Day Saint church, based in Utah."

I'm not disputing anybody's "legitimacy as Mormons" as you put it. I'm following how reliable sources usually refer to them and how they refer to themselves. And nowhere did I express the opinion that the LDS Church was the one true anything. ~Awilley (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• I am not familiar with the Noleander case but will briefly comment on what Clovermoss has said... What triggered the question was not that Awilley was editing the page but that they expressed the opinion that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the only true Mormon Church and that all other groups were either not real Mormons or fringe polygamists. Thats a very extreme position that is hard to explain any other way than personal beliefs, my intent was not to disqualify them from the conversation but get them to confront the apparent prejudice in their argument and if not the result of religious bigotry to provide sources supporting the assertion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: yes that is the primary diff although their comments about RLDS appear to span a good chunk of the discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Awilley: this seems to conviently gloss over a lot of groups that don't fit like The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Restoration branches, Church of Christ With the Elijah Message, etc... It also overlooks that your chosen source (Bushman) calls it a branch of Mormonism, but you dispute their legitimacy as Mormons. This oversimplification/erasure is the POV I'm talking about, it makes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seem like the only legitimate Mormon Church. Statements like "The Community of Christ (#2) does not fit into what we usually call "Mormonism"." do not dissuade me of the idea that there may be a COI at play here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added this conversation Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#2021 Canadian church burnings and the related editors into the scope of the request as the dispute covers much the same ground, I brought this up on Clovermoss's talk page earlier, and Red-tail has since commented here. Relevent off-page diffs[20][21]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: to be fair none of this is standard... Clovermoss was not an involved party and consulted with exactly none of the involved parties before opening this request which is only tangentially related to the Arbcon case and for which there is no serious underlying dispute. They appear to have their own dog in the fight and have picked this case to take before Arbcon for reasons unknown... "Someone made a passing mention of this case in a discussion so lets file a formal request for clarification" isn't standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jclemens: "Benefits need not necessarily be monetary, but they need be material (not spiritual or reputational) and to flow from the organization to the individual in order for a COI to exist." isn't true, non-material benefits absolutely count as COI[22] (if they didn't there wouldn't in general be a COI with friends and family). If I'm a hiring manager I have a conflict of interest when it comes to my son's employment application even if I would recieve only non-material benefits from him being hired. For a more international persepctive see [23]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Reputational and religious considerations also come with indirect material benefits, but you said that those *don't* count as COI because there is no direct material benefit... In the literature religion clearly counts "These have been reviewed in an editorial by the PLoS Medicine editors (20) and include such issues as political, ideological or religious beliefs, personal friendships or enmity, academic favoritism or jealousy and personal ambition."[24] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If we allow a COI exemption but define COI too broadly, I worry we'll create a chilling effect. It's one thing if you're employed as a priest. It's another if, like 1/8th of the world, you're a baptized Catholic who sometimes goes to church. Horse Eye's Back has said that even "belonging to a competitor" can be a COI.[25] Does this mean Muslims need to declare themselves when editing the page Catholic Church? Do secular humanists? There are countless reasons people may not be comfortable publicly disclosing their religious beliefs. This could scare away a lot of editors who might otherwise do great work. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm old enough in Wiki-years that I actually participated in giving evidence in the Noleander case. Here, it's been noted that a Principle from that case came up in talk during the present dispute. That Principle concerns the importance of not making "unnecessary references" to religious or other personal characteristics of other editors, distinguished from references that "clearly serve a legitimate purpose". It was arrived at in the context of an ArbCom case about alleged antisemitic content creation. I haven't followed the details of the present dispute, but I don't think the ArbCom case for which clarification is sought ever really dealt with COI issues (and thus, whether COI concerns do, or do not, "serve a legitimate purpose"). I think ArbCom can legitimately comment here that slurs or personal attacks against other editors (I'm not saying that such things occurred here) are impermissible, based on the WP:NPA policy and with or without ArbCom precedent. I'm inclined to think, however, that drawing the line between acceptable inquiries about COI, and unacceptable inquiries, is a community matter, rather than an ArbCom one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that editors are not required to disclose their religious affiliation when editing Wikipedia, and I think that Horse Eye's Back is plainly incorrect in this edit. As WP:EXTERNALREL notes,How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. And—as common sense would dictate—merely being a rank-and-file member of the Mormon Church, or being a rank-and-file observant Jew, or being a rank-and-file member of more or less any mainstream religious community does not warrant cause for concern when participating in discussions on Wikipedia. It would be a terrible step for privacy if editors were required to post their religion publicly in order to make edits to Wikipedia's articles about religion, and our COI guideline plainly does not impose a general requirement to do so. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I will note that, when people have disclosed their religion, there have been some editors (including at least one administrator) who have argued and doubled down that doing so categorically excludes them from closing discussions in the whole of (say) WP:AP2. Those who fear a chilling effect of being forced to disclose religion are more than justified by past community reactions to those who do disclose their religion, even among mere rank-and-file low-church Protestants (such as in that example). As sort of thing has flared up in multiple instances, and the community can't quite resolve it, I think it would be best for ArbCom to issue a statement and put its foot down on this sort of behavior. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Separately, I will note that this addition of parties after the request being opened by someone other than the person who opened the request is somewhat non-standard. In good faith, certainly, but non-standard. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I have not been involved in this thread to date and am only vaguely aware of its history. I will be delighted to help the committee in any way, but until I have a better idea whether I am here over my remarks about Kaalakaa, the proper way of referring to the prophet Muhammed, or the genocide in residential schools, I think I will wait until someone asks me a question. Please ping. Based on a very fast skim, on the whole I tend to agree with jps, if that helps anyone somehow.

Also, committee members, please note that my email address currently does not work, so if someone answered me about my previously-submitted private evidence, I have not yet seen that. Nobody's fault but mine of course, so I guess I will go swap in a new email address pending any questions. Btw, Haeb seems to be trying to excuse himself based on his comments to HEB; since he has been hounding me about some of the above, if we are talking about those things here, then I think the day 15 hours he spent berating me for something or other is worthy of some scrutiny.

If the committee has not yet taken note of the private evidence, it went through the main Arbitration Committee link a couple-three days ago btw. Elinruby (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Since HEB has clarified that he added me to this request because of this thread I'd like to say that the Canadian residential school genocide should be designated a contentious topic. There is a false claim about the deaths of thousands of small children for a start, (Example, NSFW) and people have been showing up with shovels in an effort to "prove" the conspiracy theory that there are no dead bodies. There are half a dozen current RSN threads, notably this one, and also [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], an NPOV thread,[35], an RfC [36] and a topic ban,[37][38] not to mention the aspersions and inappropriate canvassing here by an editor I have actually admired, and whatever is going on in the current ANI thread titled "അദ്വൈതൻ now edit warring to insert sources which multiple editors have previously advised is unreliable". That ANI thread is probably a better example of how religious beliefs can be disruptive to the point of becoming relevant in my opinion however, as well as the ANI thread about Kaalakaa, who thought it was ok to describe Muslims as "licking their lips like snakes",[39] or UrielAcosta's mass edits to change all references to the prophet Muhammed to say "the Islamic prophet Muhammed" because Muhammed was not, he said, *his* prophet.(lowercase_'p') The private evidence I referred to earlier is relevant to the thread HEB is pointing to, btw, though as I understand the rules it is still private evidence and I should not go into that here, not in this paragraph at least. The issue does however go well beyond what church that editor attends, so it is in my opinion a bad example for the clarification being asked here. Please ping me if there are questions. Elinruby (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question: Pbritti'ts behaviour continues even as he has been ignoring this thread. Should I write it up for ANI or, given the private evidence, should I file a case request? I am thinking that I may need to do that anyway for the CT designation, which I do think is needed. Can anyone provide any guidance on that? Or if there are still matters that need to be settled about this thread, maybe someone can get him to drop the stick at NORN until matters are a little more resolved. Any thoughts or suggestions appreciated. Elinruby (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am genuinely confused. If, to take a hypothetical, someone had been educated at one of the most militant madrasas in Iran then had taught military tactics to Hamas, and was recreationally editing wikipedia to say that Israeli does not deserve to exist, would this be something to bring up in the context of their edits? That the adamant refusal to listen seems unlikely to change given that a matter of faith is involved?

I am also confused about what I am doing here listening to people talk about asking editors about their religion since I never had any need to ask Pbritti about his religion -- he has a userbox on his user page, if his beliefs were not already blindingly obvious from his sources. I asked him to declare his COI and he angrily refused. He then said he doesn't edit the residential school topic because he is biased, he says, against that system. He does edit those articles. He reverts people in those articles, and re-inserts the same content over and over. And we all chant AGF as this goes into its third month.Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Guerillero: thank you for the clarification. I was concerned that seeming to ignore the committee might come across as IDHT if it did not agree with my assessment that adding my issue to this request was an understandable error. I will be glad to do that, but since both Clovermoss and Horse Eye's Back are now attempting to address the residential school issue, I think I will wait to see if either of them makes any headway. But again, thank you for the clarity. Elinruby (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone having merely a personal religious belief is a bias, not WP:COI. However, someone going to certain Church and paying their dues may fall under WP:COI per "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI.". Being a member of a religious organization is not different from being a member of any other private or public organization, and as such can trigger WP:COI. Therefore, asking if someone has an external relationship that could trigger a WP:COI is a legitimate question, not a discrimination. Still, it would be inappropriate to ask such a question just out of blue. That would be appropriate only if the behavior by a user indicates the presence of a significant COI that may negatively affect their editing. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans. Yes, sure. WP:COI says it "can trigger", meaning it may or may not be the case of COI, depending on the context and specific circumstances. I think Barkeep49 has clarified this well. Could one participant politely ask another about a potential COI if appropriate (see above) and without making it a "personal attack"? Yes, one definitely can. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on the Noleander case, it tells about "unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors" and so on. Yes, absolutely. Merely a background of someone, and especially the ethnic one, is not COI. But a membership in an organization, a religious or nationalistic one, can be. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jclemens. I am talking not about making voluntarily donations, but about being an official and faithful member of an organization that can be political, religious or other, such as Communist Party, Bruderhof Communities, Mormons, etc. That involves following certain set of rules, ideologies, and may include paying membership dues that are not necessarily voluntarily. Most importantly, this frequently includes faithfully serving the organization which can create a COI. This is not necessarily a priest or a commissar, this can be a rank and file member who faithfully promotes propaganda by the corresponding organization. My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, personal beliefs are just a bias, but religious institutions are external organizations, relationships with whom can trigger COI, or at least this is my understanding of this policy. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A COI and the relationship can be non-financial [40]. Someone can push an institutional or personal agenda because of institutional loyalty, institutional indoctrination, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

My very best wishes, this is entirely and totally backwards:However, someone going to certain Church and paying their dues may fall under WP:COI .... No, being an employee of or receiving dues, donations, tithes, fees for auditing, etc. is what triggers a COI. This is true for any other nonprofit, and probably also true for any other (e.g., commercial) organization that accepts money, but I haven't though that through enough to state that definitively. Giving money to an organization doesn't make one an owner, doesn't give one a financial stake in the outcome. It's less connected to the outcome of an organization than, say, sports betting is on the team or individual competitor in question: those are only problems when someone is betting on something they can personally influence. As you said right before your statement to which I take exception,Someone having merely a personal religious belief is a bias, not WP:COI. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

My very best wishes, thank you for your clarification, but I do not recognize the distinction you make as representing a valid COI in any usual or customary sense. COI is if the organization benefits me, not if I benefit the organization. Benefits need not necessarily be monetary, but they need be material (not spiritual or reputational) and to flow from the organization to the individual in order for a COI to exist. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@HEB, what you cite with respect to family members are indirect material benefits: while it might not be obligatory that your son will care for you in your old age, it is a foreseeable, socially expected outcome. What Viswanathan et al. (2013) are talking about is either bias or financial COI: anyone in academia will tell you that taking an unpopular position on a controversial topic will make future grant funding vanish. Religious or philosophical beliefs cannot be put on a balance sheet, even a highly speculative one. They can be absolutely real to people (see e.g. Rodney Stark on an economy of religion) and influence decisions but are more properly termed bias (=beliefs) rather than COI (=mercenary). Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems the arguments in defense of the right to ask questions about an editor’s demography or associations in content disputes assume that it is useful to try and figure out why an editor, besides their stated rationale, might believe what they are saying. In other words, that it can be useful to figure out where an editor’s bias comes from.

This approach favors arguing with people rather than arguing for outcomes, and I don’t think it serves the encyclopedia well. It shouldn’t matter in a content dispute whether an editor’s apparent position can be explained by bias predictably related to their religious affiliation, their race, their country of origin, or their political alignment. Content disputes are about content, not the figures at play in its editing, and arguments about forces potentially influencing an editor’s perceptions, which in turn influence their position in the dispute, are personal arguments. Personal arguments should be avoided altogether, and there should certainly be no sacrifices made to protect their continued existence (consider the short bridge to personal attacks, and the necessarily discriminatory basis for making judgments of editors that take into account their religion, race, sex, nationality, and so on).

As for whether belonging to a church qualifies as a COI, I say certainly not, and there’s no reason why an interpretation of the COI policy that includes religious alignment wouldn’t also include an editor’s race, personal beliefs, place of origin, sexual orientation, et cetera.

Basically: questions about association and demography belong to disputes between editors, not disputes about content, and I urge the Committee not to protect the right to pursue personal disputes (which don’t serve the project) at the expense of the right to have one’s edits be interpreted free of personal and demographic baggage. And belonging to a church is not a COI. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As an arbitrator I drafted most of the decision in the Noleander case, which it's hard for me to believe was 13 years ago. I think the principles I drafted stand up well to rereading at this late date; but as I just pointed out in another section of this page, there is a limit to how much any discussion of current policy should be steered by a general principle contained in a wiki-ancient arbitration decision which, like any ArbCom decision, was written in the context of a particular set of facts.

That being said, those who flatter me by seeking guidance from principles contained in old ArbCom decisions that I drafted in my past wiki-life might also enjoy Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ#Conflict of interest, although the relevant policies have evolved somewhat since that time (as has the threshold of disruption necessary to trigger an ArbCom case to begin with, but I digress).

An editor's membership in a given religious group or adherence to particular religious beliefs, nor the lack of such membership or beliefs, does not give rise to a "conflict of interest" that must be disclosed or should generally be inquired about. In this context, non-neutral, biased, or otherwise disruptive editing can almost always be addressed on its own merits without asking intrusive questions about editors' personal attributes or beliefs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• So I have opinions on this issue. What I am considering is whether or not this is the right forum to seek opinions and whether or not I should be offering my opinions as an arbitrator. It feels to me that we're primarily being asked to interpret policy. While we regularly interpet policy it is in service of one of our other duties and responsibilities, most often as part of actingas a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve; this seems to reverse those things. The "hook" for us to interpret policy here is instead a principle which hasn't been used since 2011. I'm not sure that's a strong enough hook - especially given the way many other principles have extended lives either in future arbcom cases or because the community decides to add the interpretation into policy itself (e.g. WP:LOCALCON). I think a more interesting case could be made that that we're actually needed in our role as something the community has been unable to resolve, but I don't know that case has been proven/tried here either. TLDR: I'm reading this case and pondering what is appropriate for me to respond with. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not 100% convinved we have jurisidiction here. A major factor towards finding this is an appropriate forum is, for me, this year's COI case (more than the exact case (correctly) listed here for clarification) with there not being some superior community place to resolve it and we're already here with lots of community feedback as contributing factors. So I am convinced enough to respond substantively.

  It is possible to ask about certain characteristics of an editor including, but not limited to, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and, crucially for the question at hand, religion without that question being a personal attack. It is also possible, as no personal attacks notes itself, for such questions to be personal attacks. As such a judgement will need to be made based on the substance and context in order to decide if something is a personal attack. Further, the community has decided there are times when asking such questions is inappropriate and might otherwise be a behavioral issue of a kind other than being a personal attack (e.g. asking certain questions at RFA). There is also evidence that the community finds allegations that someone cannot edit an article solely because of personal characteristics such as religion to itself be a conduct issue that can be met with sanctions.

  In terms of the specific discussion here, I think it important to remember, per the 5 principles, that we are here to write an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. Our COI guideline is a safeguard the community has wisely erected to achieve that goal. Nothing from my casual read of the conversation suggests any inappropriate bias on the content side from any of the editors trying to find consensus about how to describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As with anything we need editors interested enough in the topic to do the work and discussion required, but dispassionate enough about the topic to achieve a neutral point of view. It's entirely possible that a religious adherent will do that and also possible that they will not. Again the context and substance will matter. I will also note that many religions have people who are biased against that religion or even prejudiced towards its adherents. Such people will have their own challenges to writing a neutral verifiable encyclopedia and may be quite prone to causing conduct issues when interacting with practitioners of that religion.

  I hope that answers the question - admittedly with an answer that is going to be context sensitive rather than absolute which is also what the principle says - because I do see conduct both in that discussion and at this noticeboard that would have caused me to warn the offending party/parties had I found it as an uninvolved administrator rather than as an arbitrator in a request that is a request for clarification. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• I largely agree with Barkeep49. I would also argue that by and large it does not necessarily matter if User X belongs to Group Y; looking at Principle 8 of the same case, if said user is displaying repeated bias or prejudice in a topic area restrictions may need to be imposed, regardless of the underlying reason for those alleged biases. In general, though, asking if someone belongs to a group simply because they express a strong opinion or seem to have more knowledge than a casual editor is likely to be unnecessary and potentially inappropriate. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• One can be biased (both for and against a topic) without having a COI (WP:COINOTBIAS) and the way Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is currently written is that external relationships like religious affiliation can trigger a COI but are not prima facie conflicts of interest in and of themselves (WP:EXTERNALREL). The Noleander case principle from thirteen years ago is not out of line with WP:COI, and if the intention behind COI itself needs to change it is not ArbCom that should be attempting to do so. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• I am alarmed by the rise in religious bigotry on Wikipedia over the past few months. Part of this trend is the insistence by a small group of vocal editors that people reveal their religion as a way of winning content disputes. It is wrong and it needs to stop. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Elinruby: The middle of a thread about another topic is not the place for new dispute resolution. Please take your complaints to either the community at a notice board or to the committee at WP:ARC -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with Aoidh and Guerillero. I want to emphasise that users should never ask for identifying information of other users, including their religion. Instead, the question they can ask others is, "Do you have a WP:COI with this topic?" It is also important to emphasise that, under current Wikipedia policy, an editor with a COI on a topic is allowed to edit articles in which they have a COI with, as long as they have disclosed any contributions covered under WP:PAID and they adhere to Wikipedia's policies and procedures, including having a neutral point of view in their contributions. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by Joe Roe at 16:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Durova arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Private correspondence
2. Removal of private correspondence

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Joe Roe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Private correspondence

• I'm requesting that the committee rescind this principle, which reads:In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.

• Removal of private correspondence

• I'm requesting that the committee rescind this principle, which reads:Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee.

Following up on #Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads, I would like to request that committee formally rescind these two principles. The ArbCom of 2007 were playing armchair lawyer here. It isn't up to us to decide whether or not emails are subject to copyright (apparently the real lawyers are still arguing about it). But it's also not relevant, because the conclusion drawn in these two principles—that if something is copyrighted it can never be posted on-wiki—is nonsense. We post copyrighted text without permission all the time in the form of quotations, and quoting off-wiki correspondence when it is relevant to on-wiki discussions is no different. The right to quote is protected in all copyright regimes.

I don't expect that rescinding these principles will have any immediate effect, because policy currently forbids the posting of off-wiki correspondence because it's considered personal information, not for copyright reasons. However, the 2007 decision is still sporadically referenced in policies and guidelines, most notably in WP:EMAILPOST. Formally removing it would help clarify the consensus status of these policies and generally make it easier to discuss the issue of off-wiki communication without old, faulty reasoning getting in the way. – Joe (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac and Barkeep49: I wouldn't say it's ArbCom's responsibility to determine whether posting emails is okay or not as a general rule. Apart from the bit about the Durova case, the full text of WP:EMAILPOST is "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence" and as far as I know that's the only policy that specifically addresses it. – Joe (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I think we're saying the same thing. I don't think WP:EMAILPOST, or the Durova case, have any bearing on whether off-wiki correspondence is considered personal information. That comes from the community's interpretation of WP:OUTING, as expressed in a couple of RfCs that I think are linked above somewhere. As far as I'm aware ArbCom had no role in developing that interpretation, which is what I intended to draw attention to in my reply above. I'm sorry if I've given reason to be suspicious of my motives. – Joe (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is overdue. Those principles, explicitly citing WP:EMAILABUSE, were used to suppress quotes of positive correspondence I'd received via email (using the 'email this user' feature) and posted to my own user talk page--after my most memorable screw-up and consequently at the end of my tenure on Arbcom. What's left is at User talk:Jclemens/Archive 12#Mailbag if anyone wants to read about it, and this is what was stricken. Given what all else was happening at that time, I never brought it up for further review. Now that a dozen years have passed, can we agree that the principle was wrong from the get-go and never appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Primefac, the notion that emails have any privacy from redistribution only has any credibility based on the boilerplate footers whose ubiquity you note. In fact, spoken conversations, which we can all agree are more ephemeral, may be recorded in the United States with one party consent (many states require two-party consent, but federal law is less restrictive). For copyright purposes, however, the person recording a phone call created the sound recording, while the author who composed an email clearly holds the copyright to its text. Sending an email implicitly grants a license to all the mail servers and network equipment involved in handling the message to copy it and forward it appropriately to its recipient. Attempting to revoke access to an email after receipt by way of footers, when no explicit agreement to receive the (copyrighted) email was ever entered into, is sufficiently unlike other copyright licensing that the legal framework remains unsettled some sixty years after the invention of email. TLDR: there is no legal expectation of privacy in email, so we should not pretend as if there is. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, that failed to capture the key point well; allow me to try again: No one who understands it thinks email is private. Since the very beginning, email has been forwardable, printable, or copyable. Since the 1980's, colleagues of mine have kept particularly damning (to others; exculpating to themselves) emails in a "Barbara Walters file". Thus, it is perplexing to suggest any deference to a sender's wishes, even if those wishes were expressed. If you don't want it on a billboard, don't write it on the Internet. Thus, zero deference to email as email is necessary; everything in WP:OUTING exists just fine without any reference to email as a specific medium. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Reposting or quoting from e-mails intended to be private, without the consent of the author, is at best discourteous and should generally be avoided. One can imagine unusual circumstances that could warrant making an exception; but the mere fact that it's readily possible to forward or copy e-mails does not mean that we should disregard everyone's privacy or disclose their confidential information on a wholesale basis. Significantly, this is a separate issue from copyright.

As for the copyright issue: Under the copyright statute that has been in effect in the United States since 1978 (I can't speak about other countries), copyright generally exists automatically whenever anyone writes something original, whether on paper or electronically; this certainly includes e-mails. (The statutory language:Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.) When someone quotes from an e-mail without permission, they are implicitly making a fair use claim, just as if they were quoting from a written letter or a blog or a magazine or a book. I do not recommend that the ArbCom attempt to define the confines of fair use, in this situation or any other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: If I were writing this principle from scratch, I would focus the wording on the privacy and courtesy issues as well as on copyright, but as a practical matter, I think that if someone believes our policy in this area should be changed, they should raise the proposed change for discussion directly on the relevant policy page, rather than ask the ArbCom to repeal or modify a principle developed in an arbitration case from 17 years ago. (Of course, a courtesy notification of such a discussion to the Committee and those who follow its work would be entirely appropriate.) So the short answer to your question is that I don't think the Committee need either reaffirm or repudiate the principle. As another observation, Wikipedia copyright policy is often more restrictive than what copyright law might require, so saying "let's generally not quote from e-mails on-wiki without permission, partly because of the potential for copyright concerns" is not the same thing as "quoting from e-mails always constitutes a copyright infringement." Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: The context for the principle, both in the original Durova case and in the request for clarification, was direct on-wiki quotation, so that's what I addressed; but you are right that the underlying issue could be framed more broadly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: If the questions you're raising are actually being disputed in practice rather merely in theory, then perhaps the relevant policy page might warrant discussion or clarification. However, I still don't think any such clarification is best raised in the context of asking the Arbitration Committee, which does not generally set policy, to parse or refine a principle written by a completely different group of arbitrators in a 17-year-old case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Please note that I was not yet an arbitrator at the time of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Although I am still unsure of the value of rewriting principles from old decisions, simply deleting the reference to copyrights as is being proposed should not create any risk. As I read the motion, the Committee is not saying that quoting an e-mail on-wiki always violates the author's copyright or never violates the copyright—both of which would be overbroad and therefore untrue statements—but is simply not addressing the issue, since there is no need for it to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

There appear to be some unexamined assumptions in what New York Brad writes. The first is where does his idea come from that this is limited to "quotes", when the holding speaks of "content", one can share content without quotes (indeed most Wikipedians do that everyday in our articles). And no its not always CVIO, words still belong to everyone, so a quoted a word or short phrase is not going to be CVIO. Also, his idea of "courtesy" has to be culturally specific and more importantly circumstantial, as there are all kinds of e-mails, and probably only those that explicitly say, 'this is private', and the author has a reasonable expectation. There are a bunch of situations where the receiver would think the sender has no such reasonable expectation (even if they say its private, depending on the situation and the content). Also "private information", what do you mean, do you mean name address, ph, etc or is it being used ambiguously to mean everything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

So, Brad, are you saying it is limited to quotes or not?

And generally writing summary is not a CVIO, nor is a word, or limited quotation, right?

And don't you think your being culturally and circumstantially overbroad with your claimed "courtesy"?

Finally, are you not being ambiguous when you broadly refer to "private information"?

All these issues more than suggest the principle needs clarification. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Why won't you answer the questions about your assertions Brad? Being disputed in practice, that is what we are doing now. It seems plain that the committee is still responsible for its words, and if it wrote poorly, overbroadly, and ambiguously, and based on culturally and circumstantially limited unstated assumptions, which appears to be that case from what you have said, it should clarify -- then, perhaps you and othres can actually answer questions about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Brad, I did not say, you were on the committee. You are the one here supporting the principle but why won't you answer questions about your support, is it because the principle is ambiguous? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the premise of prohibiting this on the basis of it being a copyright violation to be a bit odd. I think there's other reasons to be cautious about sharing information from private correspondence but copyright is not what comes to mind. I live in a place where one-party consent is a thing. While that's what legally allowed, if I went around recording every personal conversation I had with someone most people would see that as unnecessarily invasive and rude. I think there needs to be a good reason to share such information without explicit consent. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see Durova's name in my watchlist today, seeing as she hasn't edited in a very long time, so curiousity is what brought me to this conversation. Upon reviewing this I have to agree that ArbCom erred here. The committee should not be making rulings in matters of law, and it shouldn't be giving talking points for lame wikilawyering. As Joe states this will have little to no practical effect in practice other than to take away said talking point, our local policies remain in effect in this regard.

2007 was near the end of the "Wild West" era of Wikipedia governance, we hadn't quite nailed down certain boundaries at that time as we have now. This is simply correcting an error from that period and relegating it to the past. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I said this in the other section above (in re the mentioning of offwiki fora), but I concur with the people here who have said that the copyright thing is ludicrous. Whatever our policy is on reproducing off-wiki correspondence, the claim that it is specifically a copyright violation is so asinine as to resemble satire -- there is no other place on the whole of the project where we interpret copyright in this derangedly expansive way. If we are to have a rule forbiding emails to be posted here, that's fine, but the basis for this should be the rule, not some made-up nonsense about copyright law. jp×g🗯️ 03:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

For convenience, see [41] for a side-by-side view of the proposed change.

Regarding concerns about the implications of the change, they can be discussed as part of the rationale of the motion, and linked to in the principle. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

My opinion mirrors that of Newyorkbrad, Clovermoss and ToBeFree. The copyright and fair use status of emails is complex. We do not need to go there because if somebody wanted to post a message on Wikipedia, the would do so. The fact that a message is sent by email implies that it should not be redistributed without permission in general, subject to reasonable exceptions in unusual circumstances.

I recommend cleaning up the wording of the decision to say that private correspondence should generally be kept private, and only posted online where there is reasonable justification for doing so. To begin, ask permission of the email author. If permission is not obtained, consider whether posting the email would be rude or harassing. Editors may be sanctioned for posting private correspondence when the effect more about harassment than improving the encyclopedia. To play it safe, forward relevant private correspondence to ArbCom and let them decide whether or not it should be posted publicly.

If an email is itself harassing, malicious, or otherwise seriously unwelcome, then any expectation of privacy goes out the window. Hopefully such circumstances will be rare. Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

A quick review of Wikipedia:Copyright does not appear to address anything written (or copied) outside of content space. It seems irrelevant to the issue related to conduct by contributors outside of that space and, I suggest, should be removed. As an aside, I agree that removing any indication of ArbCom determining what falls under Copyright law is a bonus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I see Guerillero's point; the "changed from" text is not really the "changed from" text, it's the "changed to" text, using strikeouts. In this particular case, I suppose everyone knows what is meant, but for the future, you should either say "changed as follows" and then use strikeouts and underlines, or keep the from/to system but remove the strikouts. Or, even better, use Isaacl's formatting, which is probably more familiar to Wikipedians. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, I dislike not being able to discuss this in a threaded conversation.....

@ToBeFree: I know how strikeout works. Using strikeout alone, without.... just... just nevermind. Ask Guerillero on the mailing list or something. Or don't. I'm bikeshedding, and you're misunderstanding, and interacting with other humans is exhausting sometimes. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I have mixed feelings about this request. On the one hand, I do agree that claiming "copyright violation" for a private correspondence is a bit excessive. On the other hand, posting private correspondence without consent could potentially be seen as harassment. There will obviously be exceptions (e.g. emails to Jclemens posted above), but in general we probably should not be posting emails on-wiki unless both sender and receiver(s) are okay with it. The Principles also do not necessarily specify that this pertains to emails sent between editors; many people use the "this email is only for the intended recipient" footer and — while I know that it is not necessarily a legally binding statement — those requests should generally be respected. In other words, I think the intent behind those principles is sound, even if we have to potentially strike the unsound rationale that supports it. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Jclemens, I suppose it is a good thing then that I said and recognised that such statements are not legally binding... Primefac (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• In general I am wary about rescinding principles (and findings of fact) in a way that is not true for remedies. However, I think this case for rescinding this particular principle - given the way that it remains in use at times - suggests that rescinding it would be appropriate. However, as Primefac notes, it would have to be done in a way that doesn't say "posting entire emails is OK". Barkeep49 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe I can't tell if we're saying the same thing or if you're playing a long game here which I want no part of. I am OK with ArbCom saying "We rescind EMAILPOST but as emails are considered PII, they will continue to be oversighted." I am not ok with saying "We rescind EMAILPOST" and then having someone say "well now that EMAILPOST is rescinded on what grounds do people think it's PII; even arbcom doesn't say that". I had thought we were doing the first thing, but now given your reply to me, I worry we're doing the second thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Newyorkbrad I take seriously your assertion ArbCom shouldn't try to be a copyright lawyer. What I can't tell is if you think keeping or repealing this principle is playing copyright lawyer? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Just because the United States don't have a law to forbid a behavior, it doesn't mean that the behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia. This applies to a lot of "free speech" and also to publishing e-mails that were sent with an obvious expectation of privacy. I'm fine with removing copyright-based explanations of harassment prohibitions, as this isn't about copyright to my understanding. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• The copyright argument is, to my knowledge after reviewing the literature, unsettled and mostly confined to student notes in law reviews. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Enacted - SilverLocust 💬 22:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. This is currently the only change I'm willing to make to principle 2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Remove as not really accurate and obsolete at this point in the projects history. I'm open to modifying this further but I'm unsure of what that would be at this time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
3. The matter of posting private correspondence on Wikipedia is not limited to potential copyright issues, and it seems beneficial to strike wording that suggests that it is the only concern. - Aoidh (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
4. Per my general comments and NYB's clarification of support for this motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
5. Z1720 (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
6. Primefac (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
7. I've always found the copyright argument cheesy. There is some reasonable expectation of privacy for private correspondence, but the key word is "reasonable". Maxim (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
8. The change is good, the format of this motion continues to make my eyes bleed. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

I think I'm still willing to do something here, but NYB has given me pause. I am unsure, per my comments above, if this makes it clear enough that there is no change to the status quo around posting emails but I do appreciate the simplicity and elegance of the proposed change. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Abstain

NYB's caution and guidenace here is really giving me pause, but the points in favor of not just letting this stand still resonate. So I am not quite at oppose, but I'm not ready to support so I will instead abstain. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• Can we not do the weird psudo diff thing with strikeouts? It makes motions harder to understand --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if I understand the concern. Would removing the strikethrough formatting already solve the problem? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, the only difference between MediaWiki's diff view and the strikethrough formatting is the formatting. Both display the old text on one side, marking which part of it is gone in the new version. Using strikethrough formatting instead of colored highlighting on the green text on the yellow box is preferable to me prsonally. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I did want to note that I'm not ignoring this, I just want to take more time to read through the history of all of this (which goes pretty far back). - Aoidh (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Initiated by Just Step Sideways at 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Just Step Sideways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Two recent situations have revealed what appears to be some vagueness regarding when and if users should email private evidence to the committee, the utility of doing so when it concerns a curent on-wiki, but non-ArbCom discussion, and also if merely saying that a thread exists is not permitted.

(I seem to recall that there is a case somewhere where the committee discussed very similar issues, but I've been unable to locate it in the archives.)

• In one case a user posted nothing more than the name of a very long thread at an off-wiki criticism site (they actually didn't even spell it the same as the actual thread title). It turned out that within this off-wiki thread, if one dug through it long enough, there was a link to a different thread where the very user who had made the on-wiki post was outed. This resulted in a very large number of diffs on a busy page being supressed, even though there was no direct link to any outing.
• In an ongoing RFA, some users are opposing based on what could only be described as completely harmless posts on that same forum. The recent supression action would seem to indicate that even posting the name of the thread on-wiki would lead to further supression, which is obviously to be avoided. One of these users has stated that they contacted the committee before posting, but it is unclear what this was meant to accomplish or what the committee may or may not have said back to them, if anything.
• I considered reproducing some or all of the RFA candidates posts on-wiki to demonstrate the point that they are comletely unproblematic unto themselves, but given the events described above I don't know if that would also lead to supression actions.

I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites, no matter how innocuous their posts are the topic being discussed may be, and that even mentioning the name of a thread on such a site is now forbidden, which seems a bit extreme to me.

I understand and agree that directly posting a link on-wiki to a specific post that contains outing is a clear violation of the outing policy. It is less clear to me that posting merely the name of an extremely long thread with no actual link to the thread at all is a violation. I would therefore ask that the committee clarify where the line is.

I've deliberately not named the individuals involved in these incidents as this is matter of interpretation of policy, specifically Wikipedia:Oversight. I can email more detailed information if needed but I imagine it should be fairly easy for you all to determine what I'm referring to. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep, I'm not sure what I've got wrong, because I had to kind of piece together what actually happened as the material was supressed. I was pretty sure I'd got it right but guesswork is risky that way. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Eek, I guess it comes as no surprise that we don't see eye-to-eye on this, butthere is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread. seems a bit extreme to me. Do I agree with everything that is said and done over there? No, but I could say the same about here. There are several ongoing threads over there that contain valid and insightful criticism of Wikipedia content and policy. I have personally taken multiple actions here that have improved the project, that I likely wouldn't have done had I not read the criticism over there. I'd tell you which ones but right now it is unclear to me if I'm even allowed to say. Dispairaiging remarks likeNo need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it. aren't helpful. I seem to recall you saying at some point that you have never actually read anything over there, so it's hard to understand how you formed your opinions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I do agree there are aspects of this that are outside of the committee's remit, but one thing that is for sure inside of it is the question of "emailing the evidence to the committee." If there is evidence over there that, say, an admin is blocking users for invalid reasons at the urging of others over there, and going back to laugh about it with them, that would obviously be an issue for the committee. That isn't what we just saw at RFA. I feel like "I told ArbCom" was in this case meant as a shield, to allow the user to say they had infomred the proper authorities of the supposed wrongdoing, when the wrongdoing amounted to "they have an account and have made a very small number of completely non-objectionable posts." What was emailing the committee meant to accomplish? What, if anything, did it accomplish? What, if any, was the committee's reply? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I need to explain that collective guilt is generally believed to be a bad thing. Let's just reverse this scenario: If I comment on an ArbCom case, and later the committee makes a profoundly stupid decision, is that my fault? Obviosuly not. Am I obligated to explicitly call it out and distance myself from it even though I had nothing to do with it? Of course not. Ignoring it as having nothing to do with me is a valid option. WPO is no more a monolith hive mind that WP is, opinions differ on a wide variety of topics. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, we're certainly seeing new levels of crazy here, calling people "traitors" for posting there and sayingEditors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. is pretty wild. You can't be critical of Wikipedia content or contributors or you're a traitor, choose a side. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be very interesting to hear ArbCom opinions on this question. In part, this issue comes up in the context of the 2024 RfA reform discussions heading in the direction of wanting accusations of wrongdoing against RfA candidates to be backed up with specific evidence, and the question comes up of how to provide specific evidence when it cannot be posted onsite. Does ArbCom want editors to submit such evidence about RfA candidates to ArbCom, and if so, can ArbCom respond to the evidence in a way that is sufficiently timely to be useful for RfA? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There have been a lot of subtopics within the discussion here, but something I hope ArbCom members will come back to is about the applicability of this to situations where the issue comes up during an RfA. Perhaps in some future RfA, an Esotrix-type issue will be raised (but without ArbCom having been alerted to it prior to the RfA), and editors will want to know if the editor making the accusation should present the evidence privately to ArbCom. Obviously, such evidence cannot be published on the RfA page, and the community is currently doing a lot of discussion about when it might be disruptive to make accusations about RfA candidates without sufficient evidence. So I'd be interested in any opinions about:

1. Does ArbCom want such evidence pertaining to an RfA sent to ArbCom?
2. If so, can ArbCom deal with the evidence and post a public response quickly enough to fit within the RfA timeframe?
3. And if not, does ArbCom want to point the community towards some other way of processing such accusations?

--Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I have lots of thoughts, but they boil down to: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA (or anywhere else at WP). Sorry, the world is imperfect. Based on this, you would very often be able to discuss a Discord discussion, and very often not be able to discuss a WO discussion, but with exceptions in both cases. It seems like further details on this aren't useful until and unless I become God Emperor of WP, and can just implement it, but I can expand if someone wants. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I see this as a matter for the community, rather than ARBCOM. To me the heart of the matter is if, and how, we can discuss Wikipedia editors' off-wiki activities. ARBCOM has a role to play when off-wiki conduct impinges on on-wiki matters enough; typically, for harassment, collusion, or other disruption of our core purpose. The off-wiki conduct that has become a matter of discussion at RFA is very different: it isn't a violation of any of our PAGs, it is just behavior some editors find objectionable in an RFA candidate. We treat the off-wiki lives of our editors as private, and rightfully so. Discord and WPO are weird, in that they are strictly off-wiki fora populated by a large number of Wikipedians in good standing. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take that behavior there shouldn't be immune to on-wiki scrutiny if it becomes relevant to on-wiki matters; I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that what happens off-wiki should stay there until and unless our PAGs are being violated, and then it needs to go to ARBCOM. But that's an area in which current policy seems to not cover all the contingencies, and the community needs to grapple with that. I don't see how a comment like this is useful to send to ARBCOM, or what ARBCOM could do if it was; but we're clearly unsettled as a community that it was posted, and we need to figure out guidelines for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some clarification from the committee on these matters would be helpful. This isn't entirely up to them—for example, the ban on discussing Discord discussions is the result of a community RfC and it would be inappropriate to modify it either way here—but ArbCom has historically played a role in making editors feel generally uncomfortable about linking to things off-wiki. More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?

In addition, ArbCom has a responsibility to regulate the oversight team, and I've had a feeling for a long time now that they been enforce an extremely broad understanding of what constitutes "outing" that is not necessarily reflective of broader community opinion. Some direction there could also be very helpful: OS is used as "tool of first resort", or so the mantra goes, but we shouldn't underestimate how chilling it is to have an edit suppressed. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Aoidh makes a good point below about current policy (WP:OUTING) requiring disclosure of personal information on Wikipedia before it can be discussed. There are two pivot points there: where the disclosure should happen, but also whetherprofiles on external sites, and by extension posts associated with those profiles, can reasonably be considered "personal information". For me it's the latter that is the problem here; the former is a good rule when applied to genuine personal information. Interestingly, it's also a relatively recent addition to the harassment policy,[42][43] following this discussion in December 2020. The reason given for the addition was to bring the policy in line with the practice of oversighters, which rather speaks to my point of the OS team pushing things in a more conservative direction, not necessarily the community as a whole. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Moneytrees and Barkeep49: The "copyright email" correspondence is cited in WP:EMAILPOST, albeit in a roundabout way. I think it would be helpful for the committee to formally retract that remedy, even if it won't change things immediately, just to remove the spectre of that particular armchair lawyer from subsequent discussions. As Barkeep also alludes to, a lot of the appearance of support for these rules comes not from people really reflecting on the core issue, but transferring a (faulty) logic originally applied to emails to IRC, and then from IRC to Discord, and so on. If the sender of an email wants to control what happens to it, they can do so completely: by not sending it. If the operator of a Discord channel wants to control what happens to the logs, they can do so completely: by not making them public. But what we're talking about here is material that has already been published on the internet. It is not private and never will be again. All we achieve by trying to put the cat back in the bag is to create a charade where we have to pretend not to be able to see messages that we can all see, not to know things that we all know, and not to talk about things that we can all talk about elsewhere. Nobody's privacy is protected, it just makes it easier for editors who behave badly off-wiki to evade accountability, and makes good-faith editors look like idiots because they're not allowed to provide evidence for the opinions they've formed based on off-wiki activity.
• @CaptainEek: What is ArbCom supposed to do with it, though? The precipitating incident here is an RfA where there was opposition based on the candidates activity on Discord and Wikipediocracy (so no it's not just about WPO). The opposers (including me) could not point to specific incidents, because of the rules discussed here which, at least in part, stem from a prior ArbCom remedy on from the practice of the oversight team. How would emailing ArbCom help there? And in general, what role is ArbCom supposed to play when the off-wiki material that people want to discuss is relevant to on-wiki activities, but doesn't rise to the level of something needing ArbCom intervention?
• And to nobody in particular, I do think it would aid transparency if committee members who are active on the off-wiki forums we're discussing here disclose it when voting or offering an opinion. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like an opinion on this as well, not necessarily just for RFA. Specific to WP:Discord, I !voted in the Discord RFC to restrict copying and linking Discord messages. I did so based on my reading of OUTING, HARASSMENT, and the community expectations of IRC logs, rather than strictly what I'd prefer. That consideration included what Joe references about the copyright concern of "private" messages, which seems to be part of the long standing rationale around IRC messages. I've also seen several times people suggest that OUTING goes as far as covering someone outing themselves on another Wikimedia project (i.e. a user page on eswiki), meaning that's not good enough to mention here on English Wikipedia. Prior to SUL, that may well have been, but SUL is long done. So what I'm really driving at is: Where is the line on identifying yourself sufficiently to be mentioned on site? Particular to the Discord, we have OAuth integration through an open source bot hosted on WMF resources. Is this enough to count as self-disclosure? Or does the connection to Discord have to be on-site (i.e. a userbox or otherwise)? Revisiting the Discord RFC is on the community, but some of these questions, such as EMAILPOST and how OS will act, are at least partially under Arbcom as Joe notes. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thanks. I have heard this said (Re: disclosure on other Wikimedia projects) repeatedly, but I did not know where it might actually be stated. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Ferret's comments regarding disclosures on other SUL wikis. I have a vague recollection that this was discussed previously, but I don't remember where. I don't think a single hard and fast rule can be applied to that, but it's a matter of how reasonable it is to expect en.wp editors to be aware of the disclosure. For example if you make a disclosure on another wiki and you prominently link to that page from your userpage here, that should count as disclosing it here. If you disclose something on your e.g. eswiki userpage and make it clear on your userpage here that you contribute to eswiki, then again it's reasonable to take that as having been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. However, if you state something on the e.g. Russian wikisource's equivalent of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and don't link to that page here, then it has not been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. Obviously there will be many things in between the extremes that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, unless you are sure it has been intentionally or obviously disclosed somewhere it is reasonable to expect English Wikipedia editors to be aware of, then assume it has not been disclosed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 so basically what I said just more clearly and a lot more concisely! Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: there are two issues with connecting accounts elsewhere. The first is ensuring that connections are actually correct, i.e. User X here is the same person as user X elsewhere - even sharing relatively unusual names like Thryduulf is not a guarantee (I remember finding a user Thryduulf that was nothing to do with me a few years ago, user:Thrydwulf is nothing to do with me). The second issue is that editors have a reasonable expectation of privacy and are allowed to choose to disclose things in other communities that they do not want to disclose here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Oversight did not ignore you. Primefac replied to you (Arbs and OSers it was ticket #2024060810000607) explaining that they saw no outing issues and thus nothing for the OS team to do because the editor concerned has made an on-wiki connection between WO and WP. Based on what you've written here it seems that the reason for your request was misunderstood, but you should have replied noting that. As far as the oversight team was aware you were OK with the outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing I'd like the committee to make an explicit distinction between persons involved in the act of doxxing (or say vote canvassing or any other misconduct) on third-party sites, and persons who participate on those sites but are not abettors. It's futile to overreach and police what editors do and say outside wikipedia. Hypothetically speaking, I can say whatever I want on any third party site with a fictitious name, without any possibility of repercussion on my activity on wikipedia. Arbcom should act exclusively on cases where they find evidence of misconduct by an editor off-wiki without attaching any vicarious liability to other participants on that off-wiki platform. — hako9 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@LevivichJSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. What is JSS supposed to do? Chide Vigilant aggressively so that they stop doxxing? As if that would work? The doxxing is going to happen whether editors here participate there or not. — hako9 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

CaptainEek Statements likethere is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread are problematic. Are you suggesting that if I were to discuss my resignation of the tools in late 2013, a Wikipediocracy post--that persists to this day in somewhat redacted form--doxxing me and listing my employer's name and phone number and my home address and phone number (that were redacted so quickly by WPO leadership I couldn't confirm their accuracy) and several other identifying bits of information would be off limits for me to bring up to discuss the circumstances of my tools resignation? I'd like to think that, as the person doxxed, it is my prerogative to mention, discuss, or even link to such a thread, and the clear sense of WP:OUTING is that such linkage would be permitted if done by me. (For the record, none of the information is particularly threatening to me 10 1/2 years later. Those overly interested can Google my current employer and discover why.) Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision. CaptainEek, you highlight one of the ongoing negatives of Wikipediocracy: regulars there have a love/hate, but mostly hate, relationship with Wikipedia administrators that can have a demoralizing effect on Wikipedia editors. While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

A couple of days ago on WPO, Vigilant, the WPO user who most often doxes Wikipedia editors and openly threatens to continue doing so, wrote, in response to Eek's comments here, "Sounds like Eek needs an exposé" (link omitted). JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. Here, your third post is "Dispairaiging remarks like 'No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.' aren't helpful." That's pretty bad: you take the time to criticize someone for criticizing WPO, but you don't criticize WPO for threatening to 'expose' editors.

(Also, Beebs, give up the "but they read it!" line of argument. Of course people who criticize WPO read it. Just like people on WPO read Wikipedia even though they criticize Wikipedia. This is not the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is: if people didn't criticize things they read, or didn't read the things they criticize, there would no criticism at all. Perhaps that's what you want?)

So w/r/t JSS's comment in the OP that "this has the potential to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites," that chilling effect is good and we want that. Just like WPO is trying to create a chilling effect on Wikipedia by threatening to dox editors they disagree with, Wikipedia should create a chilling effect, or a taboo, about participating in off-wiki websites that dox editors, even if those websites refer to themselves as "criticism sites." There are other reasons not to have a blanket prohibition on linking or referring to another website (one of those reasons is so we can call people out for their wikipediocracy hypocrisy, as I am doing here), but "chilling effect" ain't it. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

While I think the idea of prohibiting mention of the ignominious badsites and offsites was done with the best of intentions, it seems to very obviously and directly facilitate and enable any manner of bad behavior. In general, the way it ends up working in practice is something like:

• There is some RfC onwiki about whatever subject.
• Somebody (whether an editor here or not) makes a thread on WPO called "Giant Morons Trying To Ruin Everything By Voting For Option 2".
• Nobody can bring up the existence of this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
• For some mysterious reason that nobody could possibly fathom, the RfC has 500% more participation than usual, and is uncharacteristically nasty.
• We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Here is another example:

• Someone on WPO makes a thread gratuitously insulting a Wikipedia user, in which all sorts of unbelievably nasty things are said about them, possibly under their real name.
• Nobody can mention or link to this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
• Someone says: "Uh, well, nobody has any evidence that WPO ever did anything wrong, you know it's just a myth".
• We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Another:

• Somebody signs up for a WPO account to respond to a thread about them, or to correct a misunderstanding, or something along these lines, and their posts are 100% anodyne and unobjectionable.
• Nobody can link to the posts, or mention what they actually said, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
• Someone says: "Uh, well, I could NEVER trust someone who hangs out on WPO, you know they dox people there".
• We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Whatever the reasoning was behind this omerta stuff, it seems in practice to have almost entirely bad implications -- it certainly doesn't stop people from going to WPO and doing whatever they want (trash-talking other editors, getting out the vote for RfCs/AfDs/etc, weird mafioso larping) -- the only thing it actually stops is us talking about it or doing something about it.

Contrariwise, this isn't even much of a benefit for WPO -- people onwiki are also completely free to just say stuff with no evidence because "well I can't link to it or tell anybody what it is". jp×g🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if there's any way for me to mention this site and avoid the inevitable dual-front pissing and moaning where somebody on here accuses me of being pro-WPO and threatens to drag me to whatever, while simultaneously somebody on WPO accuses me of being anti-WPO while posting a thread under my real name in the public section of the forum and also claims that it's not doxing because if you spend a half-hour digging through my contributions you can see that my username was originally my real name -- well, whatever man, can I at least get a T-shirt? jp×g🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, the idea that single-sentence quotations of offsite communications need to be removed as copyright violations is just completely false as far as I can tell -- there is literally no other part of Wikipedia where we make the ridiculous claim that quoting with attribution one sentence from a published work is a copyvio. It's one thing if we want to have a rule against it, but it would be better to do so without unnecessarily lying about how copyright law works, and if we actually do this in policy anywhere it should really be fixed for the sake of avoiding embarrassment. jp×g🗯️ 03:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: If it's possible to clarify that we are allowed to discuss offsite happenings, I think this would be a big improvement. Currently, if I link to a Wikipediocracy thread, I do so by ignoring what people have told me the rules are; the examples I give are meant as a rejoinder to "there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread".

@Just Step Sideways: I think this thing about "collective punishment" doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- I agree that it would be dumb to block somebody simply because they hang out on the daily with a strange stalker online, and you clearly do not exert control over the dox guy. At the same time, though, isn't it kind of straightforward why people would dislike when you show up to a thread on WPO where someone is being harassed, and then make posts in the thread to say negative things about them? jp×g🗯️ 04:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst: So your preference is, when a discussion is canvassed from an external site, that we are forbidden to mention or acknowledge it? jp×g🗯️ 17:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As the victim of doxxing (and threats of same) and nasty, uncivil, and snide criticism on the named off-wiki website by at least one admin (who should lose their tools) and a few fringe(*) editors here, the comment by @Just Step Sideways: is very ironic. (* "Fringe" is defined as editors who get their POV from unreliable sources and edit and discuss accordingly here.) Just Step Sideways writes:

"I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites,.."

Whatever happened to the matter of far more importance to Wikipedia, and that is the chilling effect HERE created by those nasty off-wiki comments from other editors who should be considered good-faith colleagues here? How can one edit and discuss around such editors and ever feel safe again? The "enjoyment of editing" here is totally undermined by them. Trust has been violated. The chilling effect is enormous and constant, and one lives under a cloud of pressure from their illicit and bad faith stalking and harassment. I know this will immediately be reported there by traitors from here, but it needs to be said.

Editors need to be protected, and their enjoyment of editing here should not be threatened by uncollegial criticism, snide comments, and threats of doxxing elsewhere. It invites even worse behavior from bad actors who may not even be editors here. It's a dog whistle. Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. Keep a wall between them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to @Levivich:, @Vanamonde93:, and @JPxG: for your insights. You seem to understand the problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Puzzling that Beebs would feel the need to poke a stick into a beehive. This is not an Arb matter, if anything it is a community matter, and it's really not that. Criticism websites have existed almost as long as there has been a Wikipedia and over these 15+ years, people have a pretty good implied understanding of what is in and what is out. Mentions are one thing, links maybe another. In any event, it strikes me as dumb to overgeneralize about a message board as it is to overgeneralize about Wikipedia — projecting its worst foibles as in some way representative of the whole. This is clearly a No Action sort of request, methinks, and good for that. For those of you who demonize WPO, pop over and have a beer with us sometime, we don't bite very hard. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Jclemens - >>While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. — This pretty much gets to the heart of things. It's a criticism site, by definition. If one is above criticism or if one never makes mistakes or if one believes that Wikipedia is flawless and problemless — back off, stay away, there is nothing to see because you have nothing to learn. If you want to partake of slightly-filtered criticism, to have issues raised in an aggressive manner under a spotlight, venture forth if you desire. At its best, WPO is to Wikipedia as Sixty Minutes is to government agencies. The mission is not "to out and harass." Carrite (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Levivich - Do not necessarily conclude that the lack of publicly-viewable criticism of a WPO poster's material means there is nothing happening backstage. WPO has a Direct Messages system and there are behavioral requests made there periodically which will never show up in a thread. Don't make the mistake of calling out inaction until you know there was actually no action. Carrite (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• @JPxG - See you soon. ;-) Carrite (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

We rejected this back in 2007. Could we please stop trying to sneak it back in? Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Are there other ways to report or deal with canvassing? I am likely in the minority based on the inaction of all. It seems this discussion is about linking to off-wiki, and the collective yawn from those in positions of power might give you your answer. Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Thanks for the message. I see a few messages in my junk mail. After reading them, the fact remains: all concerned did nothing to remove the link. The link to off-wiki PAs is still there in the AfD. This seems like a work around for leveling PAs, i.e. join WPO, disparage a Wikipedia editor and then link to it on Wikipedia. I am definitely not OK with linking to off-wiki sites like WPO. Lightburst (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding copyright of email: as I've discussed previously, the real issue is privacy, and not copyright. Copyright doesn't prevent paraphrasing, and is about protecting the author's rights to profit from their work. What the Wikipedia community can do to try to enforce expectations of privacy in email (either implicit or explicit) is limited. isaacl (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The state of things is that Wikipedia is an important website, and over the decades it's become a serious website. People may want to act and speak differently here than they do in less formal settings like Discord. The dress code at the office need not apply to the sidewalk. It can also be a frustrating website, and adopting a general policy of "Do what you like but don't do it here. Oh, you're already not doing it here? Okay we're good then" is probably the healthy response. We do have some precedent for sanctioning people for off-wiki actions, such as WP:MEATPUPPET, deliberately recruiting participants to affect on-Wiki events. But they've been pretty limited and pretty strictly defined. So while possibly sanctioning someone who harasses another Wikipedian for reasons directly related to Wikipedia might be appropriate, I've been very glad of WP:OUTING's strict take over the years.

Here I was saying to myself, "I can't think of any good reason someone would link to an off-Wiki thread that includes outing," and then JPxG gives us three. I still favor the strict protection of WP:OUTING, but now I know where the tradeoff is. This is a balance we strike and not a freebie that costs us nothing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Thanks for raising this issue JSS. As the OS who did the noticeboard suppression which named a thread, your facts aren't quite right there, but I don't think that takes away from the larger point you're raising. And it's one I admit to some discomfort with in an RfA context. As it stands I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing. I also think the community would care about certain off-wiki activities. For instance, if User:Foo had lost Stewardship due to abuse on Miraheze/WikiTide there would be no cause for any action here, but I think the community would want to consider that information before passing someone at RfA. So don't have any answers (yet) but wanted to acknowledge some thoughts I had as I wait to see what other editors and arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf the wording about other projects is found in note 1 of the harassment policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @JPxG: your 3 situations confuse me. At the moment I'm not aware of anyone taking administrative action against scenario 1. Am I wrong here? For situation 2, it feels like whether or not"possibly under their real name" happens will matter a huge amount. If there's not a real name, I'm not aware of practice/procedure to suggestion action against (as with scenario 1). If there is a real name that has not been revealed under policy, it would seem to be eligible for oversighting. Are you suggesting that WPO be exempt from Oversighting in this scenario? And I don't understand what you're suggesting is the real impact of scenario 3. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  JPxG, thanks that's helpful in explaining things. No arb - not even CaptainEek who has spoken out the most strongly against WPO - is saying you can't ever link (let along mention) WPO and we both know WP:BADSITES is a failed proposal. However, if a link reasonably serves to harass someone the link would be inappropriate and writing a comment that includes such a link could be a conduct issue (depending on other factors). If the link reasonably serves to doxx someone (which is one form of harassment), it would make the comment with the link eligible for overisghting. The odds are higher that a link to WPO is a form of harassment than a link to say reddit (as another forum based community), but even that doesn't mean linking to most threads at WPO would be harassment. Most threads at WPO not having harassment also doesn't mean that a link couldn't have been harmless when posted, but turns into harassment (though no fault of the person posting) after the fact because there is subsequently outing that could reasonably be found by clicking on the link. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• I want to take more time to look into this so I can make a more informed opinion, but wanted to note that I am paying close attention to this and appreciate the statements given so far. I think it's important to note that the current wording of WP:OUTING requires self-disclosure on Wikipedia in order for the disclosure of off-wiki profiles to not constitute outing, and I think it's important to view these issues through that lens unless and until that policy is amended. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I do think this is something that the community as a whole needs to address, as these effect fundamental policies. If there are aspects that only ArbCom can address then we should do so, but the broad discussion is something the community should shape and change as needed. @Just Step Sideways: emailing ArbCom and saying that you did so on Wikipedia should not in and of itself carry any weight whatsoever, and doing this should not protect that editor from the consequences of their actions on Wikipedia or negate their responsibilities as an editor (WP:CIVILITY, WP:OUTING, etc.). @Joe Roe: there is a userbox disclosing the fact that I am on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. I am also on a few English Wikipedia-related IRC channels. Outside of that, I do not and to the best of my knowledge have never posted on any Wikipedia-focused off-wiki forum or made any comments about Wikipedia on any off-wiki forum. - Aoidh (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• I have a lot of thoughts about this but might take some time to make them digestible. One thing though, I agree with you @Joe that the "copyright" justification for not posting emails is pretty dubious, at least in a modern Wikipedia context, and I know at least one other Arb felt a similar way last year. That said, I think it's reasonable to prohibit the posting of emails (or at least discourage it), and WP:EMAILPOST doesn't actually cite the "copyright" portion of the remedy~-- so I'm not actually sure if it's something that needs to be amended? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if I'm the arb mentioned (could be!), but there was a reason in the Discord RfC mentioned above that I said it and IRC should be treated equally. I think there's a fairly reasonable case that channel/server operators should be able to decide if logs can be posted onwiki or not and for that decision to be respected onwiki. Further the copyright justification (as opposed to just straight up "Wikipedians are concerned about privacy and this is one way we choose to protect it) for OS'ing off-wiki stuff has always felt weak to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• I see a lot of beating around the bush here, but it seems clear that the real issue here is Wikipediocracy. I do not recommend participation in WPO even as a "good guy" (the classic adage about wrestling with pigs applies). It has gotten more people into more drama than highschool theatre.
  With that said, there are two possible situations involving off-wiki content: 1) the content relies entirely on on-wiki evidence, but collates/comments on/brings to light the issue; or 2) the content relies on off-wiki/private evidence. In case of situation 1, if the underlying diffs could be posted on wiki without say outing someone, then just post the underlying diffs. No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it. Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. In the case of situation 2, you shouldn't be posting that on-wiki, because you're linking to content that wouldn't be okay on-wiki, like doxxing. Alluding to it is not an improvement in my book, because then you're just casting aspersions. Instead, it should get emailed to ArbCom, who can take action as necessary. The moral is that there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Jclemens raises a good point about a situation I hadn't considered. If a person wants to acknowledge their own doxxing, they are free to do so, though it's again something I don't recommend. I agree that "never" is a bit hyperbolic, but my point with that phrase was not to say that it was verboten, but rather that it wasn't a wise choice. I stand by the idea thatIts not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  To extend on that idea and reply in part to Joe, I understand that this has been brought forward as a line drawing exercise. The community wants to know how close to the line it can get on linking this kind of stuff. My suggestion is that's the wrong inquiry. I go out of my way to avoid having to discuss WPO, because I find it a problematic and unhelpful site and think that referencing it feeds the trolls. If you don't share my opinion, than I understand how you might find my advice not helpful at resolving the underlying issue here. I stand by my aversion to WPO though; one of the best pieces of advice I have received was to never get a WPO account (and to any newer editors reading, please, avoid WPO. It will only do you harm).

  To reply to JSS, I have read WPO threads; it's an unpleasant experience. One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision. Still, having to read WPO threads is an occasional part of Arb business. Thus I stand by my blocked trolls comment, the power posters at WPO include a lot of our nastiest trolls. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  In furtherance of the line drawing exercise, I suggest that perhaps ArbCom isn't the one to answer that question. I think the issue is that the recent RfA reforms and our harassment/doxxing policy are slightly at odds. The community has expressed a very strong desire to not have doxxing material on-wiki. But it has also expressed it wants detailed reasonings for oppose votes at RfA. Those two aspects have come into conflict with one another, and absent further input from the community, we are continuing to lean on the side of caution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• I appreciate the feedback and discussion among the community (and arbs) so far. I am inclined to say that the community will need to reconcile its wishes. In particular it's up to the community to decide how it wants to reconcile OUTING and the new expectations at RfA and whether or not it wants to review past decisions about DISCORD/IRC/EMAIL (Joe Roe rightly points out that some of this sprung from arbcom interpretations, but as I think it has been adopted and expanded by the community it's not for ArbCom to say one way or another anymore as that would be a policy change). As it stands I agree with Floquenbeam's analysis when it comes to RfA:we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA. However, I do agree with Joe and others that the Committee has some role to play, though I would prefer to share that role with the broader Oversight team. With OS, I find that 98% or so of the OS requests are clear yes or clear no under policy and require little thought on my part to action. It's the remaining 2% where the OS team should work to have consistency (I think ArbCom should set the expectation that there be less variation in OS response than in other admin areas, including CU). In the noticeboard example that JSS gives, this fell in that 2% which is why I consulted with someone else before taking action. Beyond this, there has been a lot of discussion about WPO of which I have a number of opinions about but is also not a unique use case when it comes to mentioning/linking to off-wiki threads/discussions which I see as the matter before us and thus doesn't need any special analysis beyond what I've written above. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• My conclusions are formed after reading the above, but not the pertaining information at WPO. I do not take an absolutist "never link WPO" approach; there could be some valid reasons to link to an off-wiki site. However, it is the responsibility of the person linking the thread to ensure that OUTING does not happen. This means that, before posting a link on-wiki, the editor needs to review all the material on the page to ensure that the outing doesn't happen. For this circumstance, there are options like emailing ArbCom to ensure OUTING does not take place. I would like to see community consultations about how OUTING should be applied, as this is becoming a common topic at ARBCOM and might need an update. My own personal opinion to editors who are reading WPO: your time is probably better spent improving an article on Wikipedia, or having the conversation on-wiki. I'm not sure there are any motions that will arise from this, but I'm happy to answer any questions if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• To answer "More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?", I personally do not find the copyright argument that has been en vogue for about 20 years about publishing emails to be convincing. I probably need to look at the literature again, but I do not know of any case law where the copyright claim was successful. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)