Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Original announcement

• We just reblocked a user whose problems were beyond socking, who was unblocked by ArbCom. Wtht all due respect, this looks like overreach and opposing the Community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deepfriedokra: Which user are you referring to? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Newyorkbrad: Gah! Can't remember the name. Will need to dig for it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Deepfriedokra: Not necessary, I just thought you might remember it. As a general statement, ArbCom grants a very small percentage of the appeals taken to us, so it's helpful if we get feedback when one of our relatively rare unblocks doesn't work out. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        That's correct, even when the community gets it very wrong, you usually uphold the bans or blocks because you don't want to make waves by doing the right thing. (Even when policy clearly says, "or ARBCOM..." you will say ARBCOM has no authority.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        If "not making waves" were at the top of our agenda, we wouldn't grant any appeals at all, and then we wouldn't be accused of "opposing the Community" in threads like this one. How about the possibility that we look at each appeal on its merits and do the best we can with them? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Deepfriedokra: Are you referring to Beaneater00? You had mentioned it in the ANI thread. DanCherek (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        I'm guessing that is who they're referring to because after they were reblocked I asked about what our responsibility was following an ArbCom unblock and was told (convincingly enough to satisfy me) that we didn't have a responsibility any more than any admin who accepts an unblock has. It's not uncommon for people who are unblocked via appeal to act out again to and to be re-blocked and so the same being true for a segment of ArbCom unblocked users shouldn't be surprising. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • @DanCherek: Thank you! Yes. That was it. That was an egregious case of needing a siteban. At least, on the other hand, J-Man11 seems contrite. Maybe it will work out. . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If the checkuser block is over turned, any other issues, such as WP:NOTHERE, should go to WP:AN for consideration. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if the checkuserblock is overturned, the previous indef block should be reinstated, as ArbCom normally doesn't have the authority to overturn this. Basically, this editor was blocked indef first for editing issues, and then additionally twice checkuser blocked. ArbCom can overturn that checkuser block, but not the other one, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals. They should reblock the user and restore talk page access, and then the editor can appeal their non-checkuser block through standard procedures. Fram (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram that's not what Ban appeals says. It says we'll only consider appeals from certain categories of users not that we can't unblock other users. For our authority on that we have to go to WP:ARBPOL which says ...hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users. So this user was block, banned, or otherwise restricted and so we had authority under ARBPOL and the user was checkuser blocked and thus eligible for us to hear (under our procedures, which the committee sets and is responsible for). Thus under both policy and procedure this user was eligible for their block to be considered by ArbCom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • (ec)Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures says "The Arbitration Committee will, for the time being, take appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an {{OversightBlock}} or a {{Checkuserblock}}; (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions." The block I'm discussing here doesn't match any of the above three categories, it seems (I assume reason ii doesn't come into play). While the editor falls into category "i", the spirit at least of that "law" isn't that you can then also overturn blocks outside these three categories surely? Otherwise an editor would be given an incentive to get checkuserblocked once their normal block appeals are rejected; that way, they get an appeal chance which a "better" (not checkuserblocked) editor doesn't have. It can't be the intention of the above policy quote, nor of ArbCom, to give more avenues to get a non-ArbCom block overturned to editors who are checkuserblocked on top of a a standard indef block, than to editors who don't sock? Fram (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd go a little further than that and point out that we should not be subjecting individuals to excessive bureaucracy for unblocks. The idea that an individual should have to go through multiple unblock procedures - effectively adding layers of blocks on top, is not conducive.

    That's not to say that the committee shouldn't be talking to the community when we are looking at banned users, in case of wider concerns, but I didn't see an AN ban discussion for this user, I saw block discussion on their talk page (which had it's own issues), before it being upped to indef and then reacting with evasion. As a group, we accepted that the individual should have a chance.

    Per NYB, it is very infrequent that Arbcom does accept appeals and I'm sure we'd appreciate feedback on those that have gone awry. Worm^TT(talk) 15:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If editors succeed in getting both a regular indef (appealable through regular procedures) and a checkuserblock afterwards (appealable through ArbCom), then yes, they definitely should go through the unblock procedure twice. Like I said above, otherwise you are giving an incentive to editors who have had their unblock request rejected to become checkuserblocked, as they then can appeal to another authority (aka ask the other parent). Or, obviously, ArbCom could have started a discussion before the unblock, asking the community (or even the blocking admin) if there were objections to an unblock (apart from the checkuser issue, which is outside community discussion). Fram (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram, Except, a regular indef can be overturned by a single administrator. Moreso by consensus. Given that all the members of arbcom are administrators, and there must be consensus amongst the committee for an unblock, we are following the procedures.

    I have no concerns about asking the other parent because I know that individuals are FAR more likely to be unblocked through normal means than through Arbcom, and this has been true throughout all my terms.

    I've long pushed for Arbcom to take on a few block reviews as possible - since they should absolutely remain in the community's hands - but in the cases where we do review, we should be taking it all the way. In cases where we think there's a likelihood of additional information, or severe disruption, or general community buy in needed, we should request a review - however, I also think we should not be unduly wasting the community's time for simple cases. Worm^TT(talk) 15:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "The blocking administrator may be consulted for their comments on your request (this is a common courtesy)." (from Wikipedia:Appealing a block). I hope you at least did this, and contacted User:Lourdes about this? (Better still, all admins who blocked or declined the unblock requests) Because this remonds me too much of how the Den Broeder case was handled (without wanting to make any comparison between the two editors), with an ArbCom then which focused way too much on the socking, didn't search community input, and unblocked with completely inadequate restrictions in place. Of course, this one may end much better than that one, but I fear that the lessons learned then are slowly being forgotten or ignored. Fram (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram, WTT captures my thinking in response to what you're suggesting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  More generally speaking this seems like a reasonable time to announce that the committee has agreed to post some aggregate statistic about appeals. My plan had been to compile those at the end of March (1/4 of the way through the year) which is obviously rapidly approaching and thus I already had plans to begin this work next week. I write this because obviously many ArbCom unblocks (of which there aren't a ton) go unnoticed at community forums because we just unblock. It's only when we pass some sort of restriction (like this) that we note having done so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope ArbCom doesn't unblock editors who were blocked outside ArbCom proceedings / checkuser without informing the community of this? I thought there was agreement after the Guido den Broeder fiasco not to do this any more? Fram (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fram, our procedure is not to hear appeals that do not include private information (CU/OS/other) or direct Arbcom control. Worm^TT(talk) 16:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me rephrase my question then: I hope ArbCom doesn't unblock editors who were also blocked outside ArbCom proceedings / checkuser without informing the community of this? Fram (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What if the community gets it wrong, as it often does, especially at ANI? Granted ARBCOM won't take an appeal lightly especially if it will be controversial, but we do need somewhere an editor can appeal the masses. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Please post your evidence that the community "often gets it wrong". "Often" requires either statistical evidence, anecdotes about a couple of bad sanctions will not suffice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, in theory, this editor wasn't blocked by a single admin but was community banned per WP:3X (notice). In a more principles based approach, I agree requiring an editor to submit multiple unblock/unban requests is counter-productive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with both sides here. Requiring someone to go through multiple requests is not an effective use of our time, and can lead to conflict between community and ArbCom. However, given the community concerns regarding this individual, and that - absent particular circumstances which it appears haven't fully been met in this case, the community and ArbCom have both been moving toward ArbCom not dealing with this sort of unblock request, it might have been appropriate to get some feedback from the community before unblocking. On the surface it did appear that this user was one that ArbCom could unblock without consultation - it just turns out that on closer examination the situation was a bit more complicated. Meh. It's now a done deal, it's a minor point, and it would be inappropriate to require any more of J-Man11; though, in the interests of community harmony, a statement from ArbCom that they will check the little details closer next time might be useful. I note that the unblock statement from ArbCom is that J-Man11 should stick to one account - did the Committee also discuss and get a commitment from J-Man11 that they will follow community guidelines and policies on content creation? As it appears from glancing at the talkpage and the block log that the primary concern was not the sock accounts but the disruptive poor quality editing. Such editing is very time-consuming and demoralising to deal with, and I could well understand and sympathise right now with any editor who has previously dealt with this editor who becomes aware that they have been allowed back in without any restriction on their editing. In the circumstances a restriction on editing British army articles, appealable after six months, would have made sense rather than the account restriction. SilkTork (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I actually don't see any downside to informing the community about any unblock that ArbCom make. Without wishing this to sound like ArbCom isn't capable of making unblocks (because most of them obviously work out OK), we have had the total shambles that were Guido den Broeder and Beaneater00, neither of whom should have been let anywhere near the encyclopedia again, and if those had been announced here there wouldn't have been an issue because someone would immediately have said "Er ... you might want to think about that one again". I can understand that it's not great for the unblocked editor to be publicised here when they're returning to editing in a great number of cases, but I think the great reduction in drama that could be achieved in the cases like the ones mentioned above make it a sensible idea. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The vast majority of the appeals ArbCom gets (I look forward to Barkeep's stats, but at a guess 90+%) are of routine CheckUser blocks, made by a single admin with no broader community input. In the few cases where the appeal is accepted, it would seem pointless and rather unfair to the appellant to post a notice on a page as widely watched as ARBN/AN. – Joe (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to add on, I'd guestimate that 90% of unblocks are SO/Rope unblocks. As for the stats, the format I've drafted don't go into level of detail about what kind of block. Instead it's going to note the reporting period, how many open appeals there were at the start of the reporting period, how many appeals were declined, how many were accepted, and how many appeals remain open at the end of the reporting period. These are all going to have be manually counted, which is why these reports had fallen by the wayside, and so keeping it simple was a priority. I had been holding off saying anything publicly until I had done the work one time just in case the time was too substantial for it to be sustainable by (the committee agreed to this in principle back in January). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We get a ton of ban/bloc appeals, new ones nearly every day, and only a tiny percentage are unblocked. Sometimes the unblock turns out to have been a bad idea and they get blocked again. The same thing happens with "regular" unblocks and is an expected part of the unblock process. I do think the committee needs to push back on the apparent perception in some quarters that an arbcom unblock is an inoculation or an endorsement, which it most certainly is not. Users unblocked by the committee have the same status as any other user not currently blocked and are not subject to any special status outside of any unblock conditions imposed. If they start doing the same things that led to them being blocked to begin with, or anything else that would get a user blocked, any admin can block them again on their own authority. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The reason why I blocked indef was because of continued ignorance (deliberate, or incompetent...) of the disruptive issues. If the user has reached out to ArbCom and they have deemed the unblock to be proper, I don't believe there is any issue with this. Yes, policy is worded in one way. But this is common sense area, and I consider all current ArbCom members to be quite intelligent and considerate about such requests. While I significantly respect the views of my fellow editors, I don't see any reason for this discussion to be moving in the direction that it is. Warmly, Lourdes 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As this was a regular indef block "beneath" the CUblock, I have no objections to ARBCOM handling both, as any arb is an admin who could review the case normally anyway. I do hold that someone who is both AC-blocked and CBANNED should have to go through both processes, but that's a niche group that does not apply here. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• An Arb requested that we note here that this motion does not prevent any individual administrator from taking regular administrative actions in the future in regards to Tenebrae. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would an appeal (in six months or whenever) be an option? Like, as some sort of formality? El_C 12:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Essentially, yes. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, it will always be the same person, but okay...? El_C 13:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hooray, bureaucracy? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose it's technically possible that our policies regarding COI may change. I don't think it at all likely, but I've been wrong before. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's good practice to recognize that things change and change in unexpected ways. Having mechanisms to react to those changes seems appropriate and so it's kind of a standard add-on (well either 6 months or 12 months for a first appeal). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see why people think the situation can't change or we need a change of policy. We don't normally permanently (and I mean permanent not indef) block or ban people with a COI from editing an article where they have a strong COI, especially where it's a personal COI rather than a paid one. People are strongly discouraged from editing directly when they have a COI, but it's not forbidden. Indeed somewhat ironic in this case, but as a BLPN regular I would be horrified if we ever implemented such a policy. We may ban or block an editor with a COI if they edit directly and it causes problems which happens a lot, but we need there to be actually an identified problem with their edits not just 'editor has a COI and is editing directly'. If there is such a block or ban it's intended as an indefinite one not a permanent one. In other words, it can be ended if we are convinced the editor will behave going forward. This doesn't mean the editor will never edit directly despite the lack of a ban or block, it only means their editing will be appropriate, mostly stuff already covered by WP:BANEX i.e. stuff they could always do even despite the block or ban albeit needing a sock unless it's a ban without a block. But there could also be perfectly appropriate edits that are technically not covered by BANEX that an editor without a ban or block could make directly despite having a COI. This case is complicated by the fact we can't comment why the editor has a COI, but while I can see how this may prevent us ever lifting the ban, that's not exclusively because of a policy issue. Editors are generally fully entitled to reveal why they have a COI. They are also fully entitled to not reveal. At the moment it's the latter but we don't need a policy change for the former, just the editor to change their mind. It may be that the wrongdoing is so great that it's difficult for the community to ever trust the editor ever again. But I don't see any reason arbcom should prejudge that. And also, I'm unconvinced that 20 or even 10 years from now, we'll definitely still feel the same if the editor has behaved and is otherwise a stellar editor and demonstrates a clear understanding of why their previous editing was wrong and a commitment not to repeat that. TL;DR "always be the same person" in an identity sense maybe. But "always be the same person" in an editor behaviour sense? We should always hope not and under our current policies many editors with a COI don't need a ban. P.S. Even without the editor revealing why they have a COI, I'm not sure this means we need to keep the ban. IMO assuming the other conditions are ever met i.e. we're confident they will behave, it seems fine for the ban to be lifted if there is an acknowledged COI without the precise reasons being revealed. I can understand some may feel different due to the history. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ArbCom tags this onto almost every motion as a matter of course, and it's as much a polite way to say we don't want to hear from you for at least half a year as it is an invitation to appeal. In theory I don't think they could ever bar someone from appealing indefinitely, since ArbCom is supposed to be the last resort for conduct issues and the committee changes every year. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:

(1) Is the material redacted from the Lovece biography and its talk page going to be restored?

(2) Does the conflict of interest also apply also to edits concerning Lovece's employer, Newsday?

AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of clarifying who was wrong and who was less wrong in this whole saga, a note in User:Hemiauchenia's block log might not go amiss either, although I carry my breath in my hand on that one.——Serial 15:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the same spirit, an apology to the multiple other individuals who have in the past been sanctioned and/or blocked for drawing attention to this long-running issue wouldn't go amiss, though I suspect that hell will have frozen over (or melted due to infernal warming) long before that happens... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two answers:

1. ArbCom is not taking any action with respect to the redacted content; if the Oversight team determines this content can be restored, that is their decision to make.
2. This was not part of our deliberations, so at the moment there is no restriction there.

As a reply to some of the comments above: I cannot speak for the Committee as a whole regarding past blocks (recently or otherwise) but this was a rather unusual juxtaposition of COI and OUTING. While I have not really looked into the blocks, I would guess that at the time they were made they were appropriate given our rather strict rules regarding OUTING. That doesn't mean that I won't change my opinion on that topic or the Committee as a whole will not make further statements if/when more information comes to light, though. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: More information than what? Without knowing what the committee based its decision on, how is the community supposed to know what you know and what you don't? Why did the committee choose to investigate this in secret? Mo Billings (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New information has a funny way of coming to light. Another news article could be written, someone could contact ArbCom directly, the possibilities are quite numerous (and honestly, I'd rather us receive information we already know than miss out on novel info). As far as why we took this case privately, when it first crossed our inboxes it was an outing concern, which meant we couldn't discuss it publicly without spattering said information all over Wikipedia (which would, you must admit, defeat the purpose of keeping said information private). Heck, I'm being intentionally vague with my answers because there is still a potential outing concern, depending on how the redacted information is used. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that conducting investigations which touch on outing concerns or other sensitive information was unusual for the committee. Isn't there usually a notice of such things with a request to send the information to the committee? Mo Billings (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for past committees or their private cases, but in this instance we were metaphorically flooded with emails from a number of parties all regarding the same issue. Other than follow-up questions and extended conversations with some of those individuals, there was not a lot of extra information that we felt we needed from the community at large in order to make our decision. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that one of the specific issues raised in the external 'reliable source' [1] which brought this matter to public attention was the excessive number of citations made by Tenebrae to Lovece's material published on Newsday, can I ask why ArbCom didn't include this in their deliberations? WP:COI seems clear enough regarding the potential scope of such transgressions, and if there's a reason why ArbCom wouldn't consider excessively promoting Newsday content etc relevant, I can't think of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can't say why it wasn't discussed (something about proving a negative), so all I can really say is that we didn't discuss it. As I said to Praxicidae below, there is nothing preventing future restrictions from being made. Primefac (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to contradict with Primefac says (it's all true) but Tenebrae adding a Lovece citation anywhere would fall afoul of their topic ban. I am unaware of any edits where Tenebrae edited Newsday or otherwise edited about it in a way that caused concern, beyond adding links to its reviews. But as noted there is nothing preventing the community from going further or from us going further and indeed our internal discussion about this continues. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae has edited the Newsday article many times, under his own account [2]. And there are probably good grounds for asking whether some of the other regular contributors to that article were Tenebrae too, given the circumstances. He has already admitted to editing as an IP in a manner which led to him being blocked, and the Newsday article seems to have been subject to an unusual proportion of IP editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23 times over 15+ years doesn't strike me as "many times". In fact that is few enough that I was just able to look at all 23 edits. I don't find a whole lot to be objectionable. For instance this is one of the most substantive edits but even so I'm not seeing an issue. There were a couple of Lovece related edits in there but again that would be covered by the topic ban. As for IP editing, if you have specific concerns I know they'll be looked at with interest at WP:SPI as that's how the last IP was identified. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that trying to raise CoI concerns re Tenebrae at WP:SPI was one of the things that previously led to a community member being blocked. Before anyone raises the matter there again, perhaps we can have a statement from ArbCom to the effect that the same thing won't happen.

Meanwhile, if anyone wishes to judge for themselves the degree with to Tenebrae's self-promotion has also involved promotion of his employers, I recommend looking at the history of the Film Journal International article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If raising COI concerns about Tenebrae result in blocks it's not present at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenebrae/Archive which show 2 SPIs. The unsuccessful one was filed by a sock who was blocked 9 months later. The successful one was filed in December by an editor who has not been blocked since 2019. I also don't see any suppressed or deleted edits at the SPI (or the archive) as I would expect in an COI leading to an OUTING block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given their tendentious editing (and wildly out of policy) of BLPs in general, this seems pretty lenient. VAXIDICAE💉 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This motion does not preclude future motions or sanctions if necessary, either by the community or ArbCom. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I'm just pointing out that there's more than just dubious COI editing, but since we can't go into details because of certain policies, I'd say the community is owed a huge apology and a heart felt reassurance that the same extremely unethical and tendentious behavior won't be continued. VAXIDICAE💉 16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Arbcom did the right thing here. Their motion deals with the information received privately due to OUTING concerns. Anything else - such as a community ban on editing BLPs or adding information referenced only to certain authors or articles, or any additional block or ban decisions - can be made by the community as a whole. Now that Arbcom has posted its motion, there's no actual or perceived restriction on the community taking additional steps if we wish. Speaking personally, I recused from direct discussion or action on any suppression requests because I don't consider myself impartial on this matter; I will similarly recuse from any similar direct discussions on lifting suppression. Risker (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Risker here. I've been concerned about Tenebrae's editing of BLPs for quite a while. This is because of their tendency to want us to document real name, birth dates etc including of unrelated parties like children. The COI stuff is largely irrelevant to my concerns and I don't think will make a BLP ban much or any easier. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the extent to which Tenebrae has been promoting Frank Lovece and Maitland McDonagh (I've just removed one example), I strongly suspect that the community would want to see stronger sanctions if the information known to ArbCom were public (I'd be up for a community ban myself, based on the lengthy years of deception). But we're not allowed to discuss it, so the idea of the community taking things further is somewhat moot. Yes, we could discuss Tenbrae's approach to other BLPs, but only in relative darkness. I'm not suggesting the information should be made public (it obviously shouldn't), I just suggest that the suggestion that the community can take things further if we think the current sanction is insufficient is flawed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, then again, maybe we could get further in community discussion based on what is public and can be linked. I'll have a think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've indef'd for less. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard about Tenebrae's edits. Mo Billings (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the above, I have started a discussion at WP:OUTING in order to change the policy so this situation does not continue. I say continue rather than 'happen again' because given the use of oversight here that has enabled COI editing, its impossible for ordinary editors or admins to get a clear picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a community ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed community ban for User:Tenebrae. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can ArbCom give the community any guidance about how you decided that the existence of the article in the Daily Dot gave rise to a situation in which the community is free to discuss COI issues without falling afoul of the harassment policy? I'm asking this in part to clarify why ArbCom decided that this is OK, but also to clarify what editors should not do in future cases of suspected COI. Obviously, if the information were posted only on a doxing website, ArbCom would not be encouraging discussion of it. But how should the community understand how ArbCom determined that the Daily Dot article was something entirely different than that? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tryptofish: I'll give the reasons behind my vote specifically. I voted to stop suppressing the link, but explicitly not in order to enforce our COI policy. I did so because Lovece is the notable subject of a Wikipedia article, and the article could be considered a reliable source to support statements in his article. The community might well decide to do so, though of course it is not required to do so if it determines otherwise. But in any event, this kind of suppression is essentially using a conduct policy (WP:HARASS/WP:OUTING and WP:OVERSIGHT) to settle a content question (whether we should include the reference in an article). Under the circumstances, I believed that would be inappropriate. I also would hold that the initial suppressions were entirely appropriate until reviewed by ArbCom; oversighters should 100% continue to enforce the oversight policy and the decision not to suppress arguable OUTING should never fall to an individual oversighter. As to the COI question, I have many thoughts on this but it will take sme time before I have them in a concise and articulable form. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply, but I still have questions. I understand how this applies with respect to the content of a BLP article. But I think that the community still needs guidance about what is, or is not, permitted during COI discussions. Would it be correct to say that, if we have a BLP about a notable person, and that BLP cites a reliable source that identifies that person as the same person who edits here under some other name, and who has not posted their real-life identity here, then that person no longer is covered by the outing policy for purposes of COI discussions? And would it be correct to say that, if an editor is not the subject of a BLP that cites such a source, then linking to an article in a reputable news source that reveals the editor's identity is against policy and subject to oversight? (As I'm sure you can infer, I'm uncomfortable with such a distinction.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I get it, that what I asked is the kind of question that is a pain in the rear end to answer, and I'm fine with ArbCom taking some time amid a packed schedule to think the issue through and get it right. But I very strongly urge the Committee to give serious thought to the boundary between outing and not-outing as it applied in this specific case, and to communicate your thoughts to the community. It will not be enough to just say that we got it right and there's nothing more to see here, so move along. It's just a matter of time until somebody posts some new thread at COIN and cites the motion here to indicate that it's permissible to link to something, and then gets oversight-blocked for doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A specific way to think about it is if someone links to a doxing website and says: "but it's common knowledge because anyone can Google it and it's the first Google hit". And while there is an obvious distinction between linking to 8chan and linking to The New York Times, there may be no such clarity between some other online forum, and a relatively obscure online reporting website. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tryptofish: I don't think ArbCom as a whole is going to give an answer on a WT:ACN thread. But I will share some of my thoughts on the matter, not on behalf of the committee:

  • I intentionally did not consider the COI discussions whatsoever when giving my vote on the oversight question. The fact that this article can be discussed in COI discussions is an incidental result of my decision to defer the content question to the community. It was not my intention that the community take this opportunity to reference the article to resolve the COI concern; that the community can do so merely follows logically from the other decisions in this matter. COI concerns involving private evidence should continue to be handled through the standard processes. One underutilized option from another era that fits well is to issue a block appealable only to ArbCom: admins are able to block based on private evidence if they label the block appealable only to ArbCom and immediately submit the evidence motivating the block to ArbCom.
  • This case is not a good vehicle to decide future cases. If this kind of situation comes up again, do not "test the waters" by posting on-wiki and seeing what happens. Instead, follow established processes; if you think the situation might qualify for an exception, email the oversight list or perhaps arbcom-en. Let me be more explicit: it is not generally acceptable to link to material that would be considered OUTING if posted on wiki, and editors who do so do so at their own risk. This isn't just me arbitrarily saying so; this follows from some of our strongest conduct policies, and if you want to change this, you need to change the policy first.
  • Regarding your discomfort with treating editors differently than notable subjects of our articles: the fact is, we do generally treat our editors quite differently from article subjects. We go out of our way to find and publish information on notable people in ways you wouldn't imagine doing on Wikipedia editors, subject to the constraints of WP:BLP. BLP allows for more information to be shared than WP:OUTING, especially if you have reliable sources that supports your contention. When something becomes a plausible content question, the BLP standards control, not OUTING. That's because when we write about Wikipedia in mainspace, or discussing such writing, the same standards apply as if we're writing about any other website. For example, imagine that the Daily Dot article purported to link Lovece with a Wordpress account instead of a Wikipedia account. If the community deems it appropriate, that could be referenced on Lovece's article and talk page, and it would clearly not be an OUTING question. The same standards apply when discussing someone's purported links to Wikipedia. This argument was what motivated my vote not to suppress the article. But again, this is not a decision that is up to any individual editor; editors should not post oversightable content on Wikipedia without obtaining a decision that it is not oversightable. I can easily imagine cases when this analysis would not apply with the same force, and RS-published links between notable subjects and Wikipedia users are suppressable (even under the BLP policy). The decision not to suppress came after weeks of internal discussion in this case.

  To summarize: the oversight decision was not intended to affect COI discussions in any way, and the analysis leading to the decision not to suppress was a fairly narrow exception to a strong general rule, and editors should not attempt to make this analysis themselves without clearing it with the oversight team. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, that's actually a very helpful answer, even with the necessary caveats that you made. I think it's very important for the community to understand that individual editors should not take the present case as an excuse to act outside of policy without prior clearance from oversighters. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The real question here was not, and never was "who is Tenebrae in real life?" It's entirely irrelevant. The question that should have been being asked was "does Tenebrae edit in such a way that it suggests that, for whatever reason, they have a COI with regard to Frank Lovece." Previous discussions were derailed by single-purpose throwaway accounts asking that first question instead of the second one. Without trying to blame anyone in particular, the could have and should have been dealt with some time ago, but the system failed, in part because Tenbrae was skilled at playing the system. That obstacle has now been removed, and the community is taking action, so we're probably more or less done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I have to say I think this was handled well by all concerned - ArbCom did their bit appropriately, and the community is taking it from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to all involved, I'm unhappy with how this was handled, particularly with respect to whatever off-wiki evidence may or may not exist beyond the DailyDot article. If off-wiki evidence was necessary to convince people of the need for action, then ArbCom should have made this a full siteban specifically to avoid OUTING - by imposing a limited TBAN, ArbCom is acknowledging the (apparently quite private) relationship. If off-wiki evidence was not necessary, then this should not have been an in camera decision, or better yet, it should have been remanded to the community based on on-wiki behavior. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To expand a little further on the source of my irritation: I'm one of the (vanishingly few) admins who works WP:COIN (and I haven't even had the energy to deal with it the past couple of months). There are cases that show up there where someone has made no attempt to hide their identity (user BobSmith writing about XYZCorp, Bob Smith is prominently listed on xyzcorp.com as the company's marketing director) and yet we have to dance around and give hints like "I cannot publicly say why I'm so sure this editor is COI despite their denial, but a quick Google search should tell you why I think that." It's a pain in the rear, but it's what we do to respect the OUTING policy, and anything more detailed than that will usually end up oversighted. And yet here's ArbCom using private evidence to publicly connect an editor with two very specific COI topics. It's not OUTING, but in my eyes it's dangerously close to it, and in particular is too close to the line for a bunch of folks with the +OS bit. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not acknowledging a real-life relationship between Tenebrae and Lovece; in fact, as I understand it, the Arbitration Committee has no opinion on the question. We merely have determined that Tenebrae has an actual or apparent conflict of interest with respect to Lovece, and that is sufficient to justify the action we have taken. We have also determined that it was appropriate to handle the case in private for reasons that we are unable to share. There is a big difference between asserting an actual or apparent conflict of interest and asserting a real-life relationship; the former happens all the time on Wikipedia, and the latter constitutes OUTING. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Semantics. A COI is inherently a relationship with someone or something. If you have a COI with two specific individual people, you almost certainly have some kind of relationship with them - you work for them, you're a relative, you're being paid to edit about them, you're one of them. I guess if Frank Lovece were selling shares of his estate or created LoveceCoin there might not be a direct real-life relationship, but that's an intentionally absurd hypothetical. Also: Tenebrae has apparently had an apparent COI for ages -- the fact that there is off-wiki evidence and that ArbCom is acting on it with targeted TBANs strongly suggests this is "actual" COI. And that gets to a point I didn't sufficiently address above: whatever ArbCom's official stance is on the matter, most people here know how to read between lines. You obviously can't confirm or deny anything, but what I read from the announcement and early discussion (before reading the DailyDot article) is pretty much exactly what DailyDot was suggesting. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd add here that simply based on a few days' antecedence, this doesn't appear likely to be the first poor decision made by ArbCom in recent history (assuming the current AN discussion continues the way it is). Two phrases to describe the current committee decisions: "out of touch" and "tunnel sighted"... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Although the motion specifically states "banned from any mainspace edits", is it proper for Tenebrae to be participating in an AFD for Maitland McDonagh? I would assume that as a general rule, someone with a COI would not be allowed to participate in AFD discussions, at least not to the extent of voting. I'm not asking for Tenebrae to be blocked for this. I'm just asking for clarification. Mo Billings (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the notice [3] said, copy-pasted: "The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maitland McDonagh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion." I acted in good faith based on this notice.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the rules go, I don't think there's anything that prevents Tenebrae from commenting or even !voting at the AfD at this time. As long as the COI is disclosed, which I guess it is now, the closing admin can simply assign their comments whatever weight is appropriate based on the strength of the arguments. Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it's a moot point now, IMO there's nothing wrong with them participating. But they should declare they have a COI in that discussion rather than relying on either someone else to point it out or for the closing admin to be aware of it. Given the unusual circumstances of this case, personally I'd be fine with Tenebrae simply mentioning that an arbcom motion found they had a COI. But frankly if Tenebrae doesn't wish to declare they have a COI then the best option for them is to simply not participate when they have a COI. To be clear, I'm not saying they have to declare why they have a COI, but they should at least be willing to declare they have one. And it was their only option until recently, an option they unfortunately did not take which is why they're in so much of trouble. (When I made my comments above, I thought there was just some minor COI editing. I wasn't aware how extensive it was. It doesn't significantly change my opinion except that it does seem far harder for them to come back from it. Still, I don't see any reason for arbcom to rule it out, since even if not 10 years, in 30 years who knows? Even the foundation has recognised the problem with having most of their bans being unappealable with a few obvious exceptions like child protect ones. So I'm still not sure why people feel this one needed to be unappealable.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mz7: - on a tangential note - as a member of the Oversight team, could you provide an update to the discussions/decisions of the Oversight team regarding suppressions at Frank Lovece and Talk:Frank Lovece? Note earlier comment by Primefac: ArbCom is not taking any action with respect to the redacted content; if the Oversight team determines this content can be restored, that is their decision to make. starship.paint (exalt) 16:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Internal deliberations among the OS team are pretty much never discussed on wiki, it's the nature of the work that it's mostly invisible. Even once a decisoon is made it's unlikely there would be any public post about it. If edits that are currently suppressed are suddenly visible again you'll have as much of an answer as anyone is likely to get on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement