Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

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

pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

Original announcement

• Yeesh... did I miss the principle that abolished WP:NOTBURO? And what is the basis for enforcing these onerous rules when this isn't even the RfC requested in the remedies (which was "how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion")? This seems like a bit of an overreach... – Joe (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• If it stops the obvious bludgeoning that has, at times, so obviously impacted past discussions around notability, I'll accept whatever rules are deemed necessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I am more worried by the combination of declaring a) that only two people are allowed to close this mega-RfC (valereee and xeno) and b) their decision can only appealed to ArbCom. Essentially that's locking the wider community out of a very important part of policy-making (closing and challenging closes), and now the 'moderators' have decided that their ArbCom-granted authority extends to a 'pre-RfC' on a completely different topic, it feels like we're on a slippery slope. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• I can understand your concern, but have very little experience in this part of the project - honestly, I'm only involved to try to get some sort of balance and to watch for bludgeoning again. I'll defer to your opinion on this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple arbcom members told us they considered it definitely within scope to include both deletion and creation and multiple editors told us they believed the two questions were inextricably tied together and that it was necessary to address creation at minimum concurrently and ideally as a precursor. The pre-RfC is workshopping both issues and is intended in part to decide the question of whether we can run them as a single RfC or should split them up. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

ETA: Xeno and I aren't closing the RfC. We're only developing (in process now) and then moderating it; a panel of three is being appointed for closing it. We'll only be closing the workshop phase. Valereee (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Shouldn't that be "mass-article deletion" instead of "mass-article creation"? Risker (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  pre-pre-RFC discussion expressed opinions that it was simply not possible to deal with mass deletion without first dealing with mass creation. I disagreed with this, expressing the view that it all needs to be dealt with together, but did so too late. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  We're actually dealing with them together right now. Valereee (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  ETA: (sorry, hadn't had enough coffee to be clear enough) Part of what the current pre-RfC workshop is to do for us is help determine whether it's feasible to run this as a single RfC or whether we'll have to run them separately. Valereee (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Current opinions on mass deletion are directly based on problems associated with mass creation. I support figuring out where mass creation stands first to avoid skewing the debate about mass deletion. i.e. if people think our rules about mass creation are weak or ambiguous, they're going to support making it easier to delete things because of the time it takes to deal with large numbers of bad articles, so it would be good to have a clear picture of what sort of mass creation is allowed when opining on what sort of mass deletion is reasonable. As for bureaucracy, for topics that have taken a huge amount of time, tend to attract the heat of current disputes and controversial personalities, pose the risk of codifying rules with far-reaching effects based on narrower problems, haven't had much forward progress for a long time, repeatedly come up all over the project, and have a tendency to sprawl, it is reasonable to try something new (like structure and moderation). I don't know if it's the best way, but it's a path worth exploring IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Moderated discussions are not new nor unprecedented in English Wikipedia (see, eg. 2012 moderated RfC construction, 2012 moderated RFC discussion). RfC has always been discussion, moderated by structure and procedure, and closers of an RfC find community consensus or not. Nothing new. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Valereee was too kind to blame the rules on me, but I had suggested using rules similar to those previously used at WP:GMORFC. As stated just above, nothing new. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  The objection seems to be mostly to the fact appealing moderator decisions and the panel closing is limited to a request at ArbCom, a rule which was set in place by ArbCom in the original decision, not by me or Xeno or the GMORFC rules. And I think those GMORFC rules are a great template for any RfC that has the potential for tempers running high! Very helpful, IMO.

  At any rate, unless that appeals restriction was overreach by ArbCom, it wasn't overreach. Valereee (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  It was, to me, overreach by ArbCom - I specifically raised the appeal aspect on the talk page during proposed decisions, but alas it still made it in. I like the designated mods, and many of other rules, but that is poor. I also really dislike non-threaded discussion. As it means if someone makes a point, and another person makes a rebuttal it's vastly less likely that all other readers will pair up that comment and that rebuttal. As such, rebuttals to points become vastly less efficacious. The same holds true for clarifications and expansions - it's impossible to mentally hold up the various threads within a discussion when they're spread across so many sections. More aggressive modding should reduce the negatives of threaded discussion, so to me, we should have stuck with the norm for RfCs. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  The GMO rules were set for something that was an extreme battlefield, with polarized sides and people expressing outright hatred, so they were very necessary then. I have a feeling that the present RfC will not be nearly as bad, or at least I certainly hope not, so the rules may end up being too much, although that's probably better than too little. As for threaded discussions, I see those as being like ANI, whereas separate sections are like AE – and let's just say that I think ANI is problematic. Having less replying to replies can be a feature, not a bug. It can be even harder to mentally hold up a back-and-forth that gets tl;dr. Combining separate sections with word count limits forces editors to say what really matters, and let the rest go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh man. The last time I saw multiple people closing an RfC, it was at SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and it was total cockup. Oh well. So, where are some examples of mass article creation and deletion? I can't really say much until l see some examples. Also a statement of the actual problem we are supposed to solve here? Too many articles being mass created, or too few? Too many articles being deleted, or too few? Too many articles being created and then deleted and its a waste of time? Or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It's the appeal only to ArbCom bit that I was suggesting was an overreach, since it gives ArbCom the final say on what policy should be. It might help if they clarified that while your close can only be "appealed" to ArbCom, the community can modify it later in the usual way.

Whether or not you like your discussions to take place under 500 words of rules is a matter of taste, I suppose. Though I would say that the more complicated you make the format, the more the discussion is going to favour 'insiders' who are used to it. That's one thing if we're talking about specific niche topics that have already proved contentious, quite another if we're considering restricting the ability of all editors to create articles. – Joe (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

About the appeals to ArbCom, if I read it correctly, that applies only to decisions made by the moderators during the course of the RfC – things like p-blocking a disruptive user from further participation in the RfC. The moderators and the closers are two different groups. It has nothing to do with the closing consensus or any policies or page contents. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Woops, thanks Valereee. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They said both at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#Request_for_Comment: Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. Valereee (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, at the pre-RfC talk page it does just say moderators, which is what I saw when I made that comment, but it's true that the ArbCom decision says both. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Correct! I had edited that for the workshop phase because there was no "panel close" there, apologies for making things less clear! Valereee (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thinking (again) about what we did with the GMO case, something ArbCom could consider with respect to appeals of the RfC close, particularly if there is a shift in community consensus over time, would be to also allow going to (1) WP:AE, for a consensus of participating AE administrators, or (2) to another community-wide RfC, with publication, participation, and moderation and closing similar to the original. (See closers' statement, second sentence of second paragraph.) Allowing these alternatives, in addition to going to ArbCom, would take it out of the situation of ArbCom taking for itself an exclusive role in a content decision. That might help with the concerns expressed here, without making it easy to end-run the consensus. (In the GMO situation, there was only one rather trivial request for a change, filed by me, that was simply to correct Linter errors in the text. It went to AE, and was dealt with easily.) If that sounds like something ArbCom might want to do, I'd be willing to file an amendment request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, I'm following this discussion and the other feedback from the deletion case, as well as the pre-RfC discussion. If we receive an ArbCom appeal, I would be open to considering delegating the decision of that appeal to AE. Also, note that unlike GMO or Jerusalem, the results of the close are not "final"  – they are not irrevocable by the community, and the community can amend them at any time through a new RfC. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, I'll sit tight on any action about that for now. However, I'm now confused about what you say about the community being free to amend through a new RfC. The remedy in the ArbCom decision says that the close may only be appealed to ArbCom, but nothing one way or the other about it subsequently being changed by the community without ArbCom consultation. I suppose I could parse it to mean that only ArbCom can overturn the close of the RfC, but a new RfC, not questioning the previous RfC consensus but just seeking a new consensus, is permitted. However, that's not clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

only ArbCom can overturn the close of the RfC, but a new RfC, not questioning the previous RfC consensus but just seeking a new consensus, is permitted. This is the correct interpretation. Unlike prior ArbCom-mandated RfCs, there is no period during which this RfC is "binding" in that it is unamendable; we speak clearly when we mandate otherwise. For example, in WP:RFC/J (Special:Permalink/531640266#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Jerusalem), we decided that the closure will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion. If this is a point of active disagreement, I would be happy to so clarify at ARCA, but I didn't realize anyone had a different interpretation so I would hold off from ARCAing unless others took the incorrect interpretation. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

OK by me. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Kevin that the consensus that comes out of the RfC will be no different than any other consensus and so the community may change its outcome at any time through normal processes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions draft: community comment

Original announcement

Three giant Arbcom RFCs (ace, ds, AfD) at the same time maybe wasn't the best idea, they're too much to read. Each one will be an echo chamber filled with just whoever has time for this. It's like 30 proposals across the three RFCs and more coming in. Who has time to read and think about that much? It's a holiday weekend in the US and September is "back to school" month here, one of the busiest times of year for students and parents. What's done is done but in the future, Arbcom, fewer simultaneous giant RFCs please. Levivich 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure the community can walk and chew gum at the same time. I fear ArbCom would get criticism regardless of how these were run - they've already caught flak for how long the DS reform process has taken. firefly ( t · c ) 16:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Walk and chew gum are two things that are done at the same time. Are you capable of reading two texts simultaneously? I don't think so. I think you have to read one and then the other just like the rest of us. So it's not "walk and chew gum", it's "walk then chew gum" and I'm telling you I don't have time to chew dozens of pieces of gum one after the other in the next 30 days and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Levivich 16:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a fair criticism though only one of those - DS - was really in the committee's control. One of them is a community process (ACE) and one of them came out of a case whose timing we obviously don't control. That one's also not actually at the RfC stage yet even so that seems like an easy one for people who are overwhelmed to tune out. As for DS, essentially if it didn't go up now it might not have been completed this year. I really wish that it had happened on the original timetable, and I accept some responsibility that it didn't, but I think it's worthwhile to be done. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll echo Barkeep: I too bear some responsibility for not getting DS reform out on the original timetable, and I deeply appreciate the community's patience. But I think the quality of the reform is all the better for having had enough time to "ferment". The Committee went back and forth on a lot of proposals, really focusing on the nitty gritty, and I'm quite happy with the outcome. Plus, this will run for an entire month, so there should be more than enough time for comment :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Odds are there won't be earth-shattering changes in the arbitration elections RfC. (I have, of course, ensured I will look foolish in a month by writing down that sentence.) The biggest things that have happened most recently, as I recall, are sending talk page notifications, and the various changes in committee size, both of which were significant, but in the end, not revolutionary. I don't anticipate another change in size occurring. The voting system is one possible dark horse that has come up in the past few years, but no one has publicly announced they've done the prep work needed to establish a case for change, or to ensure that a new system could be deployed in this year's election. isaacl (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - How many Arbcom RFCs are active & which are they? GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The deletion related RFC was the result of an ArbCom decision, but is a discussion among the community about policies related to deletion, because ArbCom is not empowered to make policy changes. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022 is the annual pre-election RFC for the December elections, it is not in any way controlled by the committee. So the answer as I see it is this one RFC is an "ArbCom RFC" as it is actually presented by the committee itself and could directly impact arbitration procedures and practices. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the committee was aware there were two ongoing when it launched the third, no? But you're right: three giant concurrent RFCs is too many, regardless of who launches them. Levivich 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

3 concurrent RfCs is only really a lot if they're all on topics that are hard to change once the RfC is over and if they're all truly huge. ACERFC is both inherently changeable, and can be checked that nothing extremely off the wall is proposed in under a minute. It's also run on a long timescale, so it isn't a giant RfC in an onerous sense. The DS one certainly would tick those boxes (if it were three RfCs all like the DS one, I'd agree), but the mass creation/deletion one isn't. While the close to this RfC is only appealable to Arbcom, the community can always run its own should we find the results don't work well in practice. In any case, two large RfCs at once is not anomalous or too many.

I would find it odd if they decide to go for the minimum 7 days listed in the rules - to me there's no reason it shouldn't run for the whole month, which gives plenty of time for consideration. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The minimum 7 days is for the workshop. The RfC will run 30. Valereee (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If think these three RFCs are "large" because they would take hours to read. Add in their talk pages and it's even more. In two weeks they'll each be twice as large at least. There are more RFCs/elections to follow after the first and third close. If we count the WP:CUOS2022, that's four. Levivich 00:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, I've been thinking more about this since your initial comment. I will continue to agree it would have been better if we had started the DS consult earlier in the year. But the keyword there is that it is a consult. So the community will offer valuable feedback - it's already happening - but ultimately ArbCom not the Community will make the decision. Same with CUOS. And with DS there will be at least one more chance to weigh in - before the final vote happens so it's not even like this is the community's only chance to give an opinion. So in terms of large actual RfCs that are on the community there are really two that are ArbCom related and only one that is under ArbCom's control. And the good news is that one is currently in the pre-RfC stage so there will be periods of non-overlap between those two. So for editors like you concerned about where to invest their time, I would suggest investing their time in the community run RfC (ACE) and in the Creation/Deletion RfC once it starts. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my OP is a request: in the future, Arbcom, fewer simultaneous giant RFCs please. Levivich 01:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

And my OP was that we could have avoided one of these simultaneous discussions. However, as you have continued to express concern, and then brought in a new discussion into the mix, I thought it worth sharing the thinking I've done about your OP since my first reply. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I've "continued to express concerns" (phraseology that implies not dropping sticks) so much as that I responded to three editors who denied that my concerns were legitimate, by saying that participating in the three RFCs is as easy as walking and chewing gum, that it's not really three arbcom RFCs but only one, or that they're not really large. I was expecting the response to be a quick "yeah we'll try to avoid this in the future", because nobody actually thinks it's actually ideal to have these three run concurrently, which is all I'm saying (and I think we're saying the same thing BK).

My response to you is because you said "for editors like you concerned about where to invest their time" but I'm not concerned about where to invest my time. I'm concerned that we won't get meaningful consensus from these RFCs if we don't have meaningful participation, and that we won't have meaningful participation if there are too many running at the same time. And I recognize and appreciate that you acknowledged it was a legitimate concern. Levivich 01:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that your concern is we won't have meaningful consensus in the RfCs. To some extent we'll have to wait and see what happens in the two RfCs. ACE was the first RfC to launch and participation is down from this time last year but so are the number of proposals suggesting less community energy in general around the topic. We'll see when the Creation/Deletion RfC launches but it looks from my read like there will be a week or two gap between the two which should help the community pace itself as we look to find consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The arbitration elections process is mature so there's no big opportunities lost if it runs just like last year. (There's always another election next year for changes to happen.) I suspect there is a distinct subgroup of editors who are interested in rapid creation/deletion of articles but aren't that interested in the details of empowering admins to take additional enforcement actions, so I hope at least that group remains engaged with the creation/deletion process discussion. isaacl (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if my response seemed dismissive - I'm still not sure that there is much of an issue here, for the various reasons listed above (ACE is mostly low-stakes and usually only results in minor changes, CUOS22 is much much smaller in scope, and the 'new' RfCs will be long-running enough that I think the community will have ample time to respond - and that is assuming that there will be significant overlap in participation). However, being personally unconvinced of an issue doesn't mean there isn't one, and it seems that it'd be worth bearing 'overlap' issues in mind to some degree in future. firefly ( t · c ) 10:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The arbitration elections RfC used to be a fairly quiet, sleepy one, with users trusting the election co-ordinators to follow previous traditions and use their best judgement. As with all processes that rely on consensus support, though, as the group of interested people gets larger, their views become more divergent, and so the group is no longer satisfied with delegating decisions to a small subset of the group. Some things ought to have consensus discussion (say, what should or shouldn't trigger talk page notices to everyone), while others are of much less importance and could be left to the co-ordinators (such as day of the week on which the election starts). For better or worse, though, English Wikipedia tradition means that filtering proposals is generally not done, and so the elections RfC has ballooned in size. isaacl (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightbreather unban appeal

Original announcement

Follow-up RfC to past discussion on this page about BLOCKEVIDENCE

Please see WP:VPP#RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE. (Past discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49 § Special Circumstances Blocks.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

Original announcement

• Man, I wish I knew what the account wrote that was bad enough to get reverted and removed from the edit history. Hopefully this gets sorted out quickly! --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  To the extent that there is run of the mill OSable material this was that. In other words nothing particularly exciting when I pressed the OS buttons. But I certainly recall my interest before I had the buttons so I understand the statement. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) To be honest what was written is not anything that is particularly interesting. Just self promotion and vandalism by the compromiser, none of which really needed to stay around. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  For whatever my opinion is worth, I support deleting and even oversighting (a more thorough form of deletion) any material, whether good or bad, where authorship is misattributed to an account because that account was compromised. Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: To be clear, that's not why any of this was revdelled/oversighted. The edit summaries were RD2s, the edit content was RD3 (with a dash of DENY), one new page was deleted by the compromiser, and another new page was deleted under CSD A7. I requested oversight on the latter two sets of edits for, as Barkeep says, very boring reasons. Automatically deleting or OSing compromised accounts' edits would require changes to the applicable policies, and isn't what happened here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think that edits after an account takeover should be deleted no matter what because they are misattributed. Our system is designed to attribute each edit to an author. If somebody breaks into my account and makes edits, those edits should not be attributed to me because I am not the author. (If my understanding is wrong, please let me know.) If you requested oversight for other reasons, then those reasons are further justification. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: I don't necessarily disagree with that (would have to think further), but if you want that to be policy, you should propose it at WT:REVDEL oder WT:OS, because it's not currently what happens (in an era where we're averaging 5 compromises per week). My instinct is that there wouldn't be consensus to add it to the OS criteria, but might be to add it to CRD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thinking about this further, I think I would support this on the request of the compromisee. If we made it the default action, the problem we'd run into is that it's not always clear when an account is compromised. I've made several compromise blocks where a CU later told me that nope, the person had just suddenly gone {{not a typo|rouge}}, e.g. Wrugtrab. I've also made ones where a CU told me they honestly couldn't tell whether the account was a compromised 0-edit account or a sleeper. And given how many compromises are of 0-edit or <10-edit accounts, there's rarely someone whose good name needs to be restored—in many cases the original owner has probably forgotten that the account exists. So it's only the much rarer scenario like this, where an established user is compromised, where revdelling is likely to matter, and I think that could be differentiated easily enough by allowing revdel but only at the user's requst. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• An admin who, apart from deleting some images that they had uploaded themselves, hadn't made an admin action for NINE years. Our inactivity criteria are still worse than useless, aren't they? Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please wait until February 2023 before pulling out that old chestnut, as the process was overhauled specifically for cases like this; bemoaning something that has already been fixed (albeit with a delay) is a bit of a waste of time. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  I thought it was decided that January 1, 2023, was the date? :) Izno (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Give the new rules a chance for a month, before proclaiming their shortcomings... isaacl (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Staxringold was within 31 edits of meeting the new minimums just before his edits on September 10, and the initial notifications to admins not meeting those minimums aren't set to go out until October 1. The chances that he would've been in the first group to be desysopped on January 1 (currently down to 175) seem... slim. —Cryptic 22:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  My recollection of the last discussion is that it was something like, "We know this isn't really where we want to be, but it's a step in the right direction so let's do that and revisit this when we see how well it is working". -- RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hello all. This is the real Staxringold (no, I promise, it really is, sending the appropriate email/messages to get unblocked). This is a rather frightening thing to discover. I did receive the notification about admin inactivity and fully admit to having gone hardcore inactive for some time. Thus, I fully understand if I end up losing those powers. However, as Cryptic suggested, I was intending to meet at least those minimal requirements to maintain them, for whatever that's worth. 75.150.91.37 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Staxingrold acknowledged using this IP in 2014. So either a very very elaborate impersonation, or, much more likely, the real deal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Can't a CU verify the above post with older Staxingrold edits? or is this situation outside of CU's actions? - FlightTime (open channel) 21:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  @FlightTime: Hi. ArbCom is in communication with who we believe to be Staxringold. The standard procedure is for WMF to verify that Staxringold is back in control of their account and for WMF to unlock the account. That's good news: no detective work or sleuthing by the community is required on this one. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) CUs are unwilling to connect IP addresses and accounts. That aside, is there any reason whatsoever to doubt the identity of this IP? Presumably when WMF Trust & Safety re-establishes Staxringold's access to their account, Staxringold can confirm the IP was them to clear any lingering shadows of doubt and there would be no good reason for a checkuser even if one were allowed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was considering points made by you both, that's why I asked. For what it's worth, I also think the IP post is "the real deal" Thanks for your replies. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Wasn't trying to get into all of the logistics of account reclamation here, as it's a pretty well-established, smoothly-run process at this point. Was just trying to use some SPI clerk skills to head off any questions about whether the IP above is legit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• I attempted the password reset procedure, but I still receive the same message upon logging in with the temporary password "This account is globally locked. You will not be able to log in to any Wikimedia wikis. Please contact the stewards if you have any questions." I have messaged the stewards, per the link that message directs me to, so I will await their response. Thanks! 75.150.91.37 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  You will not be able to password reset or log in until you are no longer globally locked. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  You need to follow the instructions at meta:Help:Compromised accounts and email cawikimedia.org to regain access to your account. When an account is locked it is impossible to log into it. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  I did so yesterday, I'll await their reply. Thanks! 75.150.91.37 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment closers appointed

Original announcement

• Excellent choices, thanks to all three! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Could someone please explain to the idiot signing this post why ArbCom has invested itself in deciding process modifications on the project? Near as I can tell, this RfC could result in changes to how the project manages AfD. Any consensus evaluated by the ArbCom appointed overseers of this RfC can not be appealed without ArbCom. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities clearly lays out ArbCom's scope. Deciding changes in processes is not covered by this scope. The community never devolved this responsibility to ArbCom. From my chair, it appears anything ArbCom decides on this is outside their scope and therefore void. I don't see a reason to follow it. It appears to be no different than ArbCom attempting to modify anything at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and only allowing appeals to those changes to go through them. This is not their responsibility. ArbCom was never elected to decide procedures, guidelines, policy, or any consensus bounded decisions on the project. Such concepts are entirely outside their remit. Nobody voted them into office on the understanding that this would be their role, and thus nobody has considered whether any of the current consist of ArbCom is capable of managing this. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'd encourage you to read through the case evidence or at least the findings of fact to see why the elected arbitrators, on the whole, felt that this was a solution to To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. An RfC has been a part of previous cases, including around Jerusalem, which formed the basis for this RfC wording, and GMO. You will notice that the committee has not even set the questions for discussion and the any changes which gain consensus will do so through a typical RfC process that is used to modify policies and guidelines. I hope that answers your question. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I do recall a number of times when RfCs were generated because of ArbCom decisions (examples; 1, 2). So far as I can recall, such RfCs have never been controlled by ArbCom, and overturning their conclusions via any new consensus garnering mechanism has always been left to the community, not ArbCom. This is new. I was not previously aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, but that RfC was to resolve a dispute (which is within the remit of ArbCom). It was not to decide how any process on Wikipedia is to be run, which is what this RfC seems to cover. I would like to note that I'm not the only one who has raised concerns about ArbCom's scope with regards to RfCs. One of ArbCom's own has done this in the past; see this comment. And now we have an opposition to this RfC based on remit grounds as well from Worm [1]. Worm is right. This is not within ArbCom's scope of responsibilities. Any decision made by ArbCom with regards to the RfC is void. No process run by ArbCom, much less one where it can't be appealed except through ArbCom, is going to modify Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and thus will not modify Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is descendant from that policy. Such modifications are clearly outside of ArbCom's remit. ArbCom does not set guideline or policy here; the community does. If ArbCom can't modify either of those, such an RfC will be meaningless as it will result in no changes that are enforceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking at WT:ACAS, and the discussion there is raising questions about WP:SIGCOV, what constitutes a valid stub, what shouldn't be allowed as a stub, whether an editor should be allowed to create a stub, etc. These are operational issues. This isn't a dispute between parties. This RfC can not and must not go forward. ArbCom is about to embark on controlling article development. What concludes from this RfC can not be changed without appealing to ArbCom. This is unequivocally wrong. This is about as far outside of ArbCom's remit as you can possibly get. If ArbCom claims some right to do this, then they can wave the "DISPUTE!" banner at anything on Wikipedia and claim jurisdictional right over it. There have been disputes on probably every policy and guideline on the project. Are we just to hand the reigns of policy and guideline management over to ArbCom? If ArbCom wants to provide a "friend of the court" sort of brief to help inform the community in regards to an RfC, fine. But, ArbCom has no valid right to dictate the RfC by way of appointing people to control it and preventing appeals except through them. The power for this unequivocally lies with the community. If ArbCom (or its appointed delegates) dares to modify WP:DP, WP:AFD, or WP:AFC the community is going to blow sky high over it. There will be hell to pay. Alternatively, if a well meaning editor attempts to modify any of those based on the conclusions of this RfC, there will be hell to pay when people find out they can't change those pages because ArbCom said so. ArbCom, you can NOT do this. You are completely out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)