Requests for clarification and amendment[edit]

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

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)

Statement by Just Step Sideways[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Eek, I guess it comes as no surprise that we don't see eye-to-eye on this, but there 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 like No 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, we're certainly seeing new levels of crazy here, calling people "traitors" for posting there and saying Editors 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)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Floq[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe[edit]

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)[reply]

• 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 whether profiles 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,[1][2] 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)[reply]
• @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)[reply]

Statement by Ferret[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by hako[edit]

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)[reply]

@Levivich 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. 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)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens[edit]

CaptainEek Statements like there 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Levivich[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by JPxG[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Valjean[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Carrite[edit]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

• @JPxG - See you soon. ;-) Carrite (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe[edit]

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

Statement by Lightburst[edit]

Recently an administrator in an AfD linked to WPO as an argument for their !vote in AfD. I notified the administrator who posted this link that there are personal attacks about me in the thread. The admin ignored my concern. I notified arbcom multiple times and they ignored me. I notified oversight and they ignored me. So it appears to me that we are selective in who we protect here on the project. Me, not so much, the RFA candidate? Yes. I am especially disappointed in Barkeep49 and the arbcom crew for their complete lack of attention to this issue. When it is against policy to use PAs but it is ok to link to an outside site that allows PAs we have a reason to be concerned.

The AfD was clearly canvassed at WPO and editors came to Wikipedia en-masse to ignore our guidelines and policies so they could remove the article. That canvassing is a separate issue but certainly tied to the same issue. Listen it is creepy having this anti-wikipedia site linked to us like a sister project. It is even creepier that some admins are enthusiastic supporters and participants at WPO. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by isaacl[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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.

mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Clerk notes[edit]

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

mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• 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)[reply]

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

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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 that Its 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Initiated by EggRoll97 at 03:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• EggRoll97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by EggRoll97[edit]

Multiple pages protected under contentious topics procedures this year alone (see WP:AEL#Armenia-Azerbaijan_(CT/A-A) for just a sample) have been protected under arbitration enforcement but have no editnotice or other restriction notice applied to the page. This is despite a line recurring in contentious topics procedures pages being, in part, When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice, and the contentious topics procedures page itself stating that an editnotice is required prior to blocking an editor for a violation, even if they are aware of contentious topics procedures, with the language of However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if: The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and The restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.

Because of this, I ask for clarification as to whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, or whether they may only be added by the administrator who has applied the page restriction.

ToBeFree Based on your statement, would I be correct in assuming there would be no problem (procedurally-wise?), if, for example, I went through the list of pages logged as "indef ECP" or similar in the enforcement log, and added topic-specific editnotices to them? While I've seen some commentary below about the efficacy of these editnotices, I personally find it helpful to have these types of editnotices present on pages just for the purposes of having a big banner to tell me a certain page is applicable to CTOP. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

The edit notice can be added by editors with the page mover permission. Idk whether the idea of CT was to do away with this requirement but I don't think it did so in my usual area (AI/IP), the Arbpia edit notice (and talk page notice which can be added by any editor) is needed in general.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]

Editnotices can be created by administrators, page movers, and template editors. If an editnotice exists, most editors can edit it, and I'd support non-admins rectifying clerical errors wherever possible. Speaking of which, if someone wants to collect some pages that need editnotices, I'm happy to cross a bunch of them off the list.

Arbs, I'd suggest that common practice has moved away from such editnotices being necessary. Between admins forgetting, banner blindness, and mobile editors not seeing them at all, I don't think the notices are meaningful in generating awareness of the restriction. Enforcement of restrictions these days tends to be dependent on both formal CTOP awareness and a request to self-revert being ignored or declined, meaning a few other checks are in place to avoid unwarranted sanctions. Would the committee consider changing this requirement to a recommendation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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.

Contentious topics restrictions: Clerk notes[edit]

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

Contentious topics restrictions: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• My read of the procedures is that edit notices are not required when an entire topic area is under a particular restriction (e.g. 1RR) or if an individual administrator changes the protection level under the CT procedures. They are required id an individual administrator places a page restriction (other than protection) on an individual page. The key phrasing is, for me, An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.(formatting removed). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The main purpose of these edit notices, to me, is informing users about a restriction so they can adhere to it. This is not needed for page protection; MediaWiki both displays details about the protection and prevents restriction violations at the same time. The protection text already contains the needed information (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging). All users automatically adhere to page protections, which is probably why Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices explicitly exempts them from the editnotice requirement.
  Topic-wide restrictions such as the extended-confirmed restriction can be enforced with blocks as long as a user is (formally) aware of the restriction; edit notices are not required for the imposition or enforcement of topic-wide restrictions. A user restricted from editing about weather must not edit about weather, and they may be blocked to prevent them from continuing to do so even if the affected pages didn't display a huge "this is a weather-related page" edit notice above them.
  This makes the actual question less relevant than EggRoll97 may have thought, but the answer is that {{Contentious topics/editnotice}}, which explains topic-wide restrictions, may be added by anyone technically able to do so, and {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is for use by administrators who impose a different page restriction than page protection. It will rarely be missing where it is actually required, but it if is actually clearly missing somewhere, I'd recommend simply asking the enforcing administrator to fix the issue. The existence of a page restriction (other than page protection) begins with the creation of the edit notice to my understanding, so failing to place the edit notice doesn't do the action incorrectly, it simply fails to take action at all. This is why, to me, page restrictions other than page protection can't be "fixed" by anyone else. They simply don't exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  EggRoll97, I think adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|XYZ}} as an edit notice to pages clearly fully related to XYZ would be helpful, even if no protection has happened yet.
  Adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|...|section=yes}} as an edit notice to pages related to XYZ closely enough to justify an existing CTOP page protection would also be helpful.
  There's an exception though: I wouldn't add {{Contentious topics/editnotice|blp}} to BLPs, as being in Category:Living people already causes {{BLP editnotice}} to appear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, yes; adding an edit notice where one is missing is something anyone (with the correct permissions) is able to do. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by My very best wishes at 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 5.1) My very best wishes is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
2. 5.2) Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

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

• My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Volunteer Marek
• Piotrus

Information about amendment request

• Requesting the removal of the bans described in 5.1 and 5.2

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

My editing restrictions were based on the findings of fact about my comments during the arbitration. This FoF tells about two issues.

• The first issue was my "desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek" (FoF). I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas. Yes, I felt they deserved some support, in part as victims of harassment by the banned user. However, the behavior by VM was clearly problematic, and I do not want to condone anything he did. It was never my intention to enable bad behavior in the project, and I am sorry for exercising a poor judgement in this case. Moreover, these guys are more than capable of defending themselves. Therefore, if the one-sided interaction ban is lifted, I would still refrain from commenting about VM and Piotrus anywhere, just in case, although a legitimate collaboration with them could be beneficial, given the overlap of our editing interests.

• The second issue was my participation in the arbitration case, "extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence" and "sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines" (FoF). Yes, I made wrong comments in this case, and I sincerely apologize for making them. I thought that including me as a party to the case was an invitation to comment, even though there was no an obligation to comment. Unfortunately, no one said that my comments were so unhelpful during the case, prior to posting the Proposed Decision (actually, I striked through one of these comments: [3]). This had happen in part because I simply had nothing new to say on this case, being only marginally involved in the editing of pages on Jewish history. That's why I did not submit any Evidence. Who cares what I think about the research article outside of my area of expertise, Wikipedia policies (arbitrators know them better) and participants whose editing I mostly knew in other subject areas? But it was not my intention to offend anyone or make your work more difficult. I am sorry if it looked that way. I just commented, exactly as I would with my colleagues or friends, and we frequently disagree on issues. Well, that was wrong. A contentious arbitration is not a proper place for such discussions. I fully understand this now. I do admit having a negative perception of the article by G&K. Not any more. I now believe their publication was a "red flag" indicating that an effort must be made to fix the issues and improve our reputation in the expert community. I would never make such comments again.

• Contributing to the project was difficult for me with such editing restrictions because a lot of subjects I liked editing may be related to Poland during the war, broadly construed. In June 2023, I started editing page Slava Ukraini that existed in such version and did not mention Poland anywhere, hence I thought it was safe to edit. However, Marcelus inserted a WWII Poland-related content, and I made a topic ban violation by modifying his newly included content. Unfortunately, I realized this only much later, being busy in real life and forgetting about all unpleasant things here. As a result, the topic ban was expanded as "World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe" to make sure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would be respected [4]. I apologize for this blunder. As of note, we had only a minor content disagreement with Marcelus who said this on AE.

• Once again, I apologize for making such comments during the arbitration and for the topic ban violation a year ago. But I did not have any problems with content editing or dispute resolution in contentious subject areas in recent years, including the area covered by the current topic ban (before the ban was issued). Hence, I am confident I can edit such subjects and interact productively with all users. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

• @Barkeep49. Thank you very much! Unlike the topic ban, the interaction ban does not prevent me from doing anything I want in the project. I would rather avoid these users anyway. For me, removing the interaction ban is only a matter of feeling myself as an editor in good standing. This is very important for me, but I can function without it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Link by @HouseBlaster. Yes, I agree. This is an unusual case when my positive relationships with two other contributors were deemed as disruptive. I agree they were arguably disruptive as something that had led to my unhelpful comments during the arbitration. But I do not see a reason to continue keeping this interaction ban right now. And to be honest, my positive relationships with these users are strongly overstated. Admittedly, I do not like Piotrus, and for a good reason. It is another matter that I can easily collaborate with him, especially given his immense experience. VM? I like his erudition, but he is not my "buddy". Sure thing, I am not going to support them anywhere. Why would I do it? To be a glutton for punishment? My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Aquillion. A simple warning to me during the case would be sufficient. I was very much willing to listen what arbitrators have to say: [5] (Speaking on my comment in this diff, it appears in diff #5 of the FOF as a proof of my wrongdoing, but it was merely my honest answer to a ping by another user who asked me a legitimate question, and I happily striked through my comment after a clarification). I thought mere fact that some of them talked with me during the case was an indication that I am not doing anything seriously wrong. And it was a civil discussion, even though I admittedly assumed bad faith by the off-wiki party and good faith by VM. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Pppery. Yes, indeed. Importantly, this wider topic ban on AE was imposed only to prevent any future violation of the original topic by Arbcom, nothing else [6],[7]. Therefore, if the original topic ban is lifted, there should be no reason for keeping this wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @HouseBlaster. Actually, after having this experience, I would rather not support anyone in any administrative discussions, just to be safe. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think that anything in my statements was incorrect, please tell, and I can provide additional explanations. If the motion will not pass, and I will come with same request next year, what should I do differently? My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

The topic ban always struck me as one that shouldn't have happened. There simply wasn't anything in evidence that MVBW had problems in the topic area; and topic-bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I can understand why it happened (ArbCom needs to maintain decorum during cases and has a limited toolbox to enforce that) but if they felt something was necessary, just the interaction ban, ejecting MVBW from that specific case during the case, or at most restrictions on participation in future ArbCom cases where MVBW isn't a party would have made more sense, since those were the actual issues it was supposed to resolve. Beyond this specific instance, I feel that ArbCom might want to consider how they'll enforce decorum in cases in the future and what sort of sanctions someone can / ought to get for issues that are solely confined to the case pages itself like this - partially it feels like the topic ban happened because there wasn't a clear precedent of what to do, so they just tossed MVBW into the bin of the same sanctions they were leveling at everyone else even if it didn't make sense. Possibly more willingness to eject unhelpful third parties from specific cases while the case is in progress could be helpful. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pppery[edit]

Note that My very best wishes is also subject to an overlapping AE topic ban (WP:AELOG/2023#Eastern Europe: My very best wishes is topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and is warned that further disruption may lead to a topic ban from the whole Eastern Europe topic area, without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin[edit]

Acknowledging courtesy ping. To nitpick procedurally, the TBAN I enacted was an AE-consensus sanction, not an individual one. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319 § My very best wishes. Courtesy pings to @ScottishFinnishRadish, Courcelles, Valereee, Seraphimblade, and Guerillero, who participated in the admin discussion there. I personally have no opinion on whether to lift the sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HouseBlaster[edit]

I remain of the opinion that MVBW should not be under an iban. Would someone kindly be able to explain to me what preventative purpose it is serving? Any "don't do this again" message (both to MVBW and people in the future who might consider disruptively defending someone at ArbCom) has surely been received at this point, so I don't see it remaining serving as a further deterrent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces[edit]

My very best wishes' has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek.

My very best wishes (then known as User:Biophys) cooperated off wiki with Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (then known as User:radeksz) in order to influence articles' contents and to get opposing editors sanctioned. Details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The case resulted in Eastern Europe's listing as a contentious topic for Arbitration enforcement.

TFD (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Clerk notes[edit]

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

• Created from [8] on request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse (I expressed my opinion on the iban on the PD talk page). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Recuse I was involved with one of the articles in this case. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I had mixed feelings about the topic ban which is why I didn't end up voting for it. I am open to repealing the topic ban, but not the interaction ban as a first step. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Pppery for that. I'll note that it seems to have been placed as an individual administrator action by Tamzin and as it is a year old (as of today) I'd support repealing that as part of the motion given the broad overlap, but will wait for further feedback before doing so, though admittedly the justification for the topic ban being necessary a year ago is strengthened by that action). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not immediately opposed to this request; there was cause at the time to implement these remedies but it was by no means a central part of the original case. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland[edit]

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

1. As explained above I thought our factual basis for the topic ban was weaker than for the i-ban. I ultimately didn't vote for or against it because I decided a firmer outcome to the case was better than a milder one but this particular case I wasn't sure it was ever necessary. I think a year on and given the assurances here by MVBW that we can revoke it, also knowing that should it ever be a problem again that an individual admin or AE could swiftly reimpose it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. This seems to be a reasonable request especially when it can be reimposed as necessary if it becomes an issue. Also support repealing the AE sanction, though if there is objection from editors on that point I'd be open to reconsidering that point. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. I am not sure the iban needs to stay in place, but otherwise I am not finding great issue with this motion. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

• I think this is something I'd support, but I'd like to give editors more time to comment before doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I had time to look over the history of the case through the lens of this amendment request, and this request has been open a week which I think is a sufficient amount of time. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If anything I would rather it be the other way around; the recent AE topic ban would appear to overlap with this one, but the interaction ban does not appear to be a problem any more. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The AE topic ban was a year ago and happened only a couple weeks after the case closed so I don't think it outrageous to be appealed (and rescinded) now else we should have made the minimum time to wait longer. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I appear to have misread the timestamps. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]

Statement by Clovermoss[edit]

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 [19][20]. 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?" [21] 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)[reply]

Is it possible you mean this comment? [22] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 said They'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)[reply]

Statement by ජපස[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Hydrangeans[edit]

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 in rare cases clearly 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)[reply]

Statement by FyzixFighter[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Awilley[edit]

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:

@HEB: "how is it different from other Mormon churches I've heard of?"...said nobody ever. The non-LDS Mormon churches account for some tiny fraction of a percent of Mormons. "Mormon Church" refers unambiguously to the LDS Church, which is why it shows up so early in the 1st sentence. And the other "Mormon churches" are also nontrinitarian, so your A to Q3 is incorrect. The correct answer to Q3 is that this Mormon church doesn't allow polygamy.

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

Caption text

Name	Membership	Notes
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints	~16,000,000	The branch that followed Brigham Young to Utah
The Community of Christ	~250,000	Formed from the branches that did not follow Young to Utah
Scores of small Mormon Fundamentalist branches	~40,000	Offshoots from the Utah branch

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Horse Eye's Back[edit]

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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[23][24]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghosts of Europa[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish (Noleander)[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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.

Noleander: Clerk notes[edit]

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

Noleander: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• 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 acting as 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)[reply]