Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nardog (talk | contribs) at 10:20, 23 October 2025 (→Community reactions: at a loss). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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.

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures

Original announcement
  • Not sure if this was the intent, but the change from logging the renewal to noting the CTOP invoked in the protection reason has the side effect of not having renewing page restrictions, other than page protection, logged. For example, if an administrator renews 1RR, the modified procedure no longer says it needs to be logged, just noted in the page protection log, which wouldn't be relevant as there is no page protection involved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does seem a bit of a loophole. I'd thought that only protections needed not to be logged, because a bot would, but a (as mentioned) 1RR restriction, not being a protection and thus not bot-logged, needs to still be manually logged. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Can we just change the whole logging section to You must log every AE action you take at WP:AE/Log, with the exception of those automatically logged to an appropriate AE log. and let everyone figure it out from there? I have faith that admins will handle that just fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Zak Smith

Original announcement
  • Seems like admins were dealing with this debacle just fine and this is a few weeks too late. Did ArbCom really need to take over here? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We continue to receive emails about this topic area (as Eek noted), providing a pretty solid indication that new accounts (meatpuppets) will likely continue to disrupt the topic area moving forward. In fact, the original RfAr filing that led to this motion is likely part of the ongoing attempt to do so. This restriction will make it significantly harder for the disruption we're witnessing in our inbox, and has been witnessed on various parts of the projects, to affect on-wiki processes moving forward — as the threshold for new accounts to engage with processes is 500 edits/3 months 30 days now. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct in they will likely continue with their disruption, as can already be seen here. The edit request requirement makes it easier to control, and deny, the same old arguments these pups keep regurgitating. Thanks to the committee for taking this decisive action. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to voice support here as well. As a general matter, I am a deep and somewhat vocal skeptic about the advisability of the massively increased footprint for ECP on the project as the result of both ArbCom rulings and general community resolutions over the last couple of years. I think the longterm harms of this feverishly-paced expansion of the tool likely vastly exceed the benefits. That said, this was a situation of exceptionally tenacious and sprawling disruption coordinated by a highly motivated off-site campaign to influence our content. The situation was not going to improve in the shortterm, and I view this as a reasonable response to persistent violations of numerous policies by one of the most committed sock and meat farms I have ever seen, despite the relatively niche scope of the targeted article. SnowRise let's rap 05:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel, can you clarify your "3 months" comment? The motion just says "extended confirmed". -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies asilvering, typo by me - meant 30 days. Thanks for catching, have amended in original comment. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Saves us from having to try to talk them all into a tban none of them want to accept as an unblocks condition, at least. -- asilvering (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: Which reminds me - would this obviate the unblock condition of a topic-ban from the area for the meatpuppets that have already been blocked, or will they still need to agree to such a topic ban to be unblocked? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest the topic ban is still a good idea. WP:GAMING and WP:SPA and suchlike. My position is weakly held. --Yamla (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on the feelings of whatever admin gets to their next unblock, one supposes. My inclination would be to let them go without, since it's less bother and if they're going to give us 500 useful edits we may as well let them have a second try. Someone who was already blocked in a meatpuppetry case regarding Zak Smith isn't going to get very far if they immediately return to disruptive editing on the topic once they hit XC. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if I am as optimistic as you are about the cost-benefit here, nor the likelihood that renewed disruption from any of the users in question (some of whom are very likely socks, afterall). Anyway, there is also the situation in one year's time, when ECP elapses, to consider; this campaign of disruption has been incredibly tenacious, and possibly coordinated with a party with a vested longterm interest. I fully anticipate that this situation will flare up again in 12 months, and I say that as someone not involved in the article who viewed the struggle between the disinterested editors and the WP:NOTHERE SPAs from the outside looking in. SnowRise let's rap 05:13, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With emphasis on "500 useful edits". The next thing we'd see is a request for an ArbCom case because an administrator dared to revoke extended confirmation from an unblocked meatpuppet for gaming the system. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I wouldn't revoke XC, I'd just block for disruptive editing. See you at that arb case? -- asilvering (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A living person who created their own article shouldn't be surprised when notable events happen, they get included, cited, then protected in place. Better NOT to utilize en.wiki as a place for advertising and coordinated editing. Some folks would rather test the water for themselves. Thanks everyone above for showing up. BusterD (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So this motion came in lieu of a full case. Were people really asking for an arbitration case for this rather short article? By my count, the article text (i.e. excluding infobox, hatnote, headers, references, etc) is just 3,710 characters, and just 2,158 if we exclude the bibliography and awards; people don't generally seem to ask for arbitration for single articles, let alone articles of this length. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, the case requests wasn't made by a WP:HERE community member, but rather an SPA trying to forum-shop their way out from under a pageblock imposed by a community resolution at ANI. That account is now indeffed as a sock of the same farm that has apparently been swarming the article for months as part of an even larger sock and meat campaign that has been burdening the talk page in particular with a truly staggering amount of disruption. Presumably it is the same general parties that are continuing to flood the back channels, as per Daniel's comment above.
I'm only newly aware of the article and the situation that has apparently been unfolding there for a while, but I did do a very passing look into the context behind all of this about a week back, and discovered that the subject of the article apparently has quite a reputation in certain tabletop hobbyist communities online; if the information I found coming from many different directions online is at all accurate, he is known for whipping his fans into a fervor and having them flood various forums associated with gaming culture from which he has been banned, and for participating directly in these activities. Hard to say with certainty how much of the issues here the subject is directly involved with, but the behaviors I have seen at the ANI, RFAR, and SPI discussion are basically consistent with what I saw described by other communities that have had to deal with him and his small army of fanboys.
All of which is a needlessly long-winded way of addressing your surprise and confusion by saying this was not a typical or especially legitimate case request but rather just part of particularly committed effort at canvassing and gaming our processes. SnowRise let's rap 05:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange canvassing by non-ECR.[1] What is the appropriate action? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts: revert and CT warn, which I have done so. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding User:Rager7

Original announcement
  • It's not possible to critique this given that some of the evidence is private, but a one way interaction ban seems a very light penalty for an accusation of "acute and long-term wikihounding and harassment". Does this meant that the committee concluded that Rager7's conduct wasn't as bad as the report indicated? More details here would be helpful to avoid setting a precedent of harassers being only lightly penalised. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first thought was someone who actually conducts acute and long-term wikihounding and harassment needs a overall ban, not a iban. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking individually, actual harassment was a very small part of it from a numerical incident count perspective, and these were somewhat in the past. However, the following around of edits indicated that the pattern continued longer term to this day, albeit at a lower severity. A full site ban was considered as one of the options. Sorry I can't say more. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, that's helpful. I'd suggest including a flavour of things like this in any future such arbitration motions. Aside from assisting with transparency, this also helps admins follow up on ArbCom decisions. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was support for a full ban as well, but due to first/second choice math we ended up here. To quote myself from our voting, If I came upon this type of hounding as an admin it would be an indefinite block until they could put together a convincing request that the behavior would not happen again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not as a penalty, but I personally do see a preventative need for site-banning a user with the conduct issues described in the announcement, even if the behavior has been directed towards only one person so far. This would also have had the side effect of not naming a specific victim in the announcement. Anyway, we'll see. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See [2], which explains a lot. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 05:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at this myself earlier & obviously I don't know what the private evidence but the number of times Rager7 showed up in some random article very soon after Knightoftheswords281 edited it is very concerning. However it does seem (although I only looked at about 5 cases) often what Rager7 edited was something other than what Knightoftheswords281 edited perhaps at worse they left a vaguely similar edit summary. So a disturbing pattern of what could be called hounding or at least following by Rager7 but perhaps not pure harassment since they weren't undoing or modifying Knightoftheswords281's work. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    but perhaps not pure harassment: It's still very unnerving and deserves an IBAN. Rager7 was finding reasons to edit the same articles Knightoftheswords281 did, sometimes showing up seconds after the edit, and they have done this more than 30 times. Imagine going to your watchlist and seeing edits from a single user sometimes using the same edit summaries you used. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 12:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's brave or stupid of me to mention this but I was the initial filing party here. I did not have access to any private information and that sort of thing is none of my business as far as I'm concerned, but I don't want to state my full thought process publicly for the sake of the parties involved here. ArbCom did what I wanted and expected in this case and I'm happy with the outcome here and thank them for their work. Graham87 (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators resigning 2025

Original announcement

Temporary checkuser privileges for 2025 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

Original announcement
I see no reason not to trust them with this right. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to ArbCom for getting this through quickly. Giraffer (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for volunteering! Toadspike [Talk] 22:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people closed

Original announcement
Tangential: Do these user talk page notifications normally ping every user targeted as part of a remedy every time they sent? I got, like, ten red alerts from this, one for each party sent to and two on my user talk. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the banned users are invited to "Discuss this at...", which they can't, obviously. I know that this is not intentional but it does seem gratuitously insulting to add that invitation. DanielRigal (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave a message to @Bradv, the operator of @ArbClerkBot, about this, but he seems pretty inactive. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that "indefinitely banned from Wikipedia" be amended to specify "English-language Wikipedia". RoySmith (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a good idea. But would people mix it up with Simple English if such were the case?
    we should post this to a more appropriate forum and not stray from the topic at hand however 176.227.41.171 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is splitting hairs. We have a Wikipedia namespace and not an English Wikipedia namespace, and in a similar vein, it's pretty obvious that ArbCom only have remit over the wiki they're elected on/edit on/etc. Giraffer (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As Giraffer says. It would be very odd if ArbCom started handing out bans for fr.wp, and vice versa in re the fr.wp Arbitration Committee for en.wp. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Never been done before. The case occurred on only English Wikipedia, therefore it covers only English Wikipedia. Doesn't need any elaboration or clarification. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to thank the drafters for trying out something new with the FoF for this case. I would be curious to hear their (or other arbs) reflections. I think it's really important that ArbCom continue to try new things like this out, to better serve our current needs. To be honest, while I appreciated what it offered, if I hadn't been primed for something new I'm not sure I would have registered it as something new. I am also not sure that it substantially changed how the PD decision went, such that it would be worth doing again if it meant another extremely long delay to post the PD. To be clear, I think the new format is an improvement, I just don't know if it's such an improvement that it would justify extending the timeline in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A large part of the motivation for using this format is to give guidance as to how the community can present evidence in a more clear and compelling manner (both during the evidence and workshop phases)—if that succeeds, using this format will not require nearly the same delay in the future. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm proud of the format change and think it was a significant positive – for guiding the community on presenting evidence of battleground editing here and at other venues, for giving the people up for sanctions due process, and for transparency. In future cases, those factors will need to be weighed against complexity and expediency, but I skew towards more transparency in general. So, as far as the formatting goes, I'm very happy with the work and results. I think we've produced something the community can make real use of, with the help of community members that provided evidence and feedback. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not so thrilled about it. An expanded FoF has some benefits surely, but those must be weighed against the increased effort and the downsides of trying to be comprehensive. While the expanded FoFs weren't the only aspect of the delay, they surely delayed it significantly--so much so that I was required to come in and put things back on track. I also think being comprehensive has some practical downsides. When we don't list all examples of bad conduct, folks can treat our list as complete even when it isn't. Also, getting a majority of Arbs to agree on the characterization of evidence gets harder the more evidence we try to present. FoF comprehensiveness is a scale. I support doing more than we have at times done, but this was perhaps too much. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say it depends on the case. For omnibus-style cases such as SCI or EED more comprehensive FoFs may be necessary to show the disruption across multiple articles in a topic area writ large. But for something much narrower in scope such as YSK or this case, it's a lot more work for no practical benefit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I'm fine with the outcome, and I recognize that it's more important to get things right than to get done quickly, I think ArbCom needs to take a serious look in the mirror, as regards that delay in posting the PD. This was a seriously long delay, and I feel sorry for named parties who had to wait for it. I take what CaptainEek just said here very seriously. Being more comprehensive is fine, but simply doing that should not have taken so long. There was some sort of failure of human workings, behind the scenes. The Committee certainly knows what that was, but the community does not, and the community is tasked with reelecting, or not reelecting, Committee members. Obviously, it's up to ArbCom how much of this they do, or do not, choose to make public, and I'm sympathetic to how difficult that is. Some editors pointed out on the PD talk page that, in the future, when a case looks complicated to sort out, the drafters should set a later deadline for PD posting, from the start. That might be part of the solution, but I really think that ArbCom owes it to case parties not to delay things so badly, at all. One way or another, ArbCom should deal with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We hadn't tried drafting in this format before, so we weren't able to properly estimate how long doing so would take (and of course, the first time doing something often takes longer). The evidence presented in the case also made drafting something comprehensive rather difficult, as most of the evidence was not presented in a clear enough manner to justify immediate sanction, requiring further investigation (often across multiple extremely long and dense threads). As the drafting phase went on, we also got busier, so it was harder to find time to draft (as we hadn't expected the case to take so long, other time obligations in our lives came up).
    I greatly appreciate Eek stepping up to help get this finished. It wasn't our intention to take this long, of course, and I'm cognizant that being a party to a months-long ArbCom case would be unpleasant and stressful for most people. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence presented in the case also made drafting something comprehensive rather difficult, as most of the evidence was not presented in a clear enough manner to justify immediate sanction, requiring further investigation (often across multiple extremely long and dense threads).
    I think this get's to my problem with that method. Along with being "judges", we're also a jury of sorts. We look at the evidence presented, the discussions around that evidence, and anywhere else we're led while reviewing evidence. Trying to distill the totality of what we've read into a handful of diffs doesn't capture the way each individual arbitrator reads, analyzes, and weighs the evidence and context. I think this is demonstrated with my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Proposed decision#Sweet6970. Trying to wrangle the views and weighting of the presented evidence of up to fifteen individuals into nine links doesn't really work well, in my opinion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    re the evidence being unclear, would there maybe be benefit from having interim phases where arbcom can go "we are considering X Y and Z, and need A B and C" and offload some of that further investigation onto the people presenting evidence? In effect, I suppose that would effectively mean an "Evidence", or Evidence-adjacent phase would remain open until arbs are confident they have all the information they need, and I guess it might just push the delay into that phase instead. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's part of what the workshop should be being used for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to point out, on the main case page, the This case is currently open, so no changes may be made to this page, and unauthorised edits may be reverted. If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop. box should probably removed now right? As above so below 20:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for noticing;  Fixed. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What am I missing about YFNS? The FoF don't seem nearly bad enough to justify the remedy. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the short version, see the votes on the five proposed remedies that started with a 8, starting from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Proposed decision#Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist indefinite topic ban (healthcare). Aaron Liu (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the FoF and the PD. I still don't understand how this conduct warrants such a broad TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'm especially surprised by @HJ Mitchell's statement in #9, which implies that merely being brought to a case or a noticeboard is a sign of a problem. This appears to be, basically, a statement that "the nail that sticks up gets pounded down", which I certainly hope was not the intent, and which is particularly worrisome to me given the frequency of tendentious filings in CTOP cases. Harry, I hope you might be able to clarify your intent, which right now appears to be at least partly in conflict with your attempts to find a more tailored topic ban than the ones initially on offer. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m completely baffled that the evidence against YFNS seems to be things like “they called Kenneth Zucker a supporter of conversion therapy”. Zucker is infamous for his long time support of conversion therapy for trans children. He has quite literally written papers on it. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the remedy and reasoning as well. But the link shows the perspective of the Arbs: an interpretation of the FoF as intractable recidivism. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My honest answer here is mostly that YFNS has very bad luck around topic bans.
    Namely, she caught a topic ban here mainly, AFAICT, because she had a previous topic ban. But her previous topic ban was quite controversial at the time: consensus was very split and the thread was started by a malicious sock. (It also directly referenced off-wiki evidence at ANI in a way I've never seen elsewhere.) I don't think she should ever have been topic banned, now or then. Loki (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to thank ARBCOM for handling this situation. I share some of my colleagues hesitations above about the expanded FoFs. I appreciate the intent behind them, and also the potential utility of being able to signpost misconduct in greater detail. But the cost of producing this goes beyond time alone, as I see it: there's also an expanded need for precision and fairness when writing a paragraph instead of a sentence about a single editor's conduct. There were several remedies that I agreed with wherein the underlying FoFs had clearly fallen short, which suggests to me the problem is with the format. I think there's a genuine use for establishing the details of conduct when possible, but also situations where less is more. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks

Original announcement
  • I strongly encourage anyone who is even potentially interested to reach out – I'm personally more than glad to talk it out. I first became a clerk more than nine years ago, and it has been a remarkably fulfilling experience even having returned to the work after concluding my stint as an arbitrator. ArbCom needs folks who will step up and make Wikipedia's most complicated (yet remarkably important) process more approachable, user-friendly, and easy to interact with, not just for the folks who participate in cases or requests, but also for the many people who edit CTOPs and engage at AE. There are currently only three active clerks, so if you've ever considered it, this is the time to reach out! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Also happy to chat via email or Discord (where I am house_blaster). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is cross-posted at AN, but note that we're looking for clueful editors, not necessarily admins. All three of us started clerking before we ran for adminship. (Personally, I became interested in arbitration from helping out with requested move discussions in topics where an ECR prohibits non-EC participation.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 02:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enjoyed my three stints as a clerk and would like to add my voice to the chorus of people encouraging admins and non-admins with a year of experience on the project, or more, to apply --Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from SFR on the incident at WCNA

Original announcement

Community reactions

  • Thank you ScottishFinnishRadish and the rest of the committee. As one of the people who was in the room where this happened, I think this is important for us to know. Thank you all. Guettarda (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for posting this - I am hoping that the WMF and WMNYC take more accountability, and I think that publicly highlighting what happened (and what should have been known to those responsible for our safety) is a good way to encourage that. There was no reason for the individual in question to be present at the conference, and no excuse for this situation to happen again. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ajraddatz that this person should not have been in the audience. I understand how the WMF is pressured by other communities who take a different stance on child protection than we do. But with all the information (some of which, as my edit history notes I've suppressed as a measure of first resort while hoping the OS team will affirm it was OK to post) available to them, I think they got this decision wrong or at least we need a full accounting of the risk assessment systems the WMF had and whether they were appropriately calibrated or whether the risk assessment systems need adjusting. For instance, at minimum, I think there should be a script run by the WMF provided to large event organizers that scans the usernames of all participants and highlights any that are blocked (and in this case blocked on multiple projects) so the organizers can decide if there is no issue (as often there would not be - indeed there were other blocked users at WCNA) or if there is an issue that needs addressing in some form or fashion. I feel like if that had been done, there's a very real chance the organizers don't allow this person to be a registerd participant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thank you, Radish. Bishonen | tålk 20:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • As a functionary who attended WCNA and subsequently learned the background, I wholeheartedly co-sign this statement and commend Arbcom for their extraordinary bravery and commitment to the community, especially SFR. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that was horrifying to read. Thank you, SFR, for your diligence and transparency. 28bytes (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Toadspike [Talk] 21:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must be livid. It's unbelievable that they wouldn't ban a self-identified pedophile when children participate here and likely elsewhere. Would this have happened if we had actual community representation in positions of authority? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kowal2701: I have long noticed the near-contempt that some within the WMF have for "the community." There's a huge disconnect out there. Too many in the WMF who have never edited a single article and know nothing of our world here. You nailed it. Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, what a shit show. Thanks SFR for all you did to try to prevent this from happening, and to those who leapt into action to protect others once it did. Generalrelative (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrespective of whether the ban should have been assumed by the WMF, there definitely needs to be a safeguard against allowing editors who have issued threats of in-person confrontation to attend events. And given the political climate in the US in particular, maybe just more security at events full stop. signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone else who was also in the room when the incident happened, I am stunned. I personally need to process this information before I offer further thoughts, but someone, somewhere, seriously needs to get to the bottom of this. Montanabw(talk) 21:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the transparency shown here (especially given the constraints of the WP:ANPDP). I can only assume the WMF's caution stems from maintaining their legal safe harbor status as a hosting provider rather than a moderator; being a pedophile is not illegal until an actual crime occurs, however morally bankrupt it may be. I attended WCNA in 2016 and actually planned to attend this year as well (flights were cheap, but general attendance tickets were sold out). With the level of foreknowledge described, event security should unquestionably have been much stricter. It’s difficult to overstate how serious that lapse was. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    their legal safe harbor status as a hosting provider rather than a moderator. This is a legal myth, and a surprisingly persistent one given that we're all aware of lots of websites that heavily moderate content using paid staff. See "Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act" by Mike Masnick. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link and clarification, Tamzin. I stand corrected on 230 deets. That myth does seem persistent! (The More You Know) Still, it's frustrating to see the WMF's hesitation in cases like this, they might still be overly cautious due to other legal risks, such as potential defamation claims, but...meh. Just infuriating to read about the inaction regardless. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what I've heard before, from WMF(-adjacent) people, is that concern about defamation is the main impetus. Even a frivolous lawsuit costs donor money to fight, and may well come from someone who is judgment-proof with respect to any fee-shifting statutes.huh, redlink The thing I don't really understand, though—and I mean that non-rhetorically, maybe a WMFer can clarify—is that the ban process already doesn't specify any reason publicly. I used to assume there was some private explanation, but then a globally banned user showed me the email they'd gotten, and no, it was entirely boilerplate, no mention of their specific offense, not even the kind of threatening language I'd expected would be there about how socking could be a CFAA violation or something. Is there really that great a risk of defamation suits in cases where the WMF isn't even saying what the person did wrong? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just Googled and found out about the Lomax v. WMF case from 2020 where a globally banned user sued over the public ban logs on Meta, claiming they made the block look too harsh. The court basically said "nope, stating a ban isn’t defamation". So- if even that's legally fine, the WMF's ultra-caution here really does feel like...overkill? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they did presumably have to pay a fair bit for that. I doubt Abd ul-Rahman Lomax had much money even if there was fee-shifting, and as it happens he died a few years after that case was dismissed. So it's... I honestly don't know what to think. I get why the WMF doesn't want to just burn money to fend off that kind of suit, but at the same time, crazy and/or bitter and/or evil people will file vexatious lawsuits no matter what you do; at a certain point it's part of the cost of doing business, like shrinkage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transparency? Transparency?? SFR's statement has been suppressed. (It still appears on the page, with a little information redacted. I've copied it, for when it disappears completely.) Bishonen | tålk 21:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thank you SFR for posting this. As someone who hasn't attended any meetups, I'm deeply shaken to what happened in NYC. Its great that no one was (physically) hurt but things could've gotten much worse. There should be increased safety/security at events, whether or not by WMF. JuniperChill (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If there's one thing we've learned from this incident, it's that we need to have better security procedures at meetups, especially high-profile ones like WCNA. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the WMF's hesitancy to pass out site bans willy-nilly; but if that's the tact they're going to take, in-person events cannot just ban globally-banned users and no one else. I don't see why users who have been indefed on one of the main projects relevant to the conference should be allowed to sign up anyway. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible for users blocked on one project to be users in very good standing on another project. Whether such people should be at a specific conference will depend on the nature of the conference and why they are blocked. For example someone blocked on a language-specific project (e.g. English) for lacking competence in that language should not banned from a multi-lingual conference, even if one of the conference languages is e.g. English. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, but in this situation I'd like to give discretion to the conference organizers so that they can weed out cases like this. He never should have been permitted to attend. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we should not blanket ban folks with blocks. An editor may be a very positive contributor on one wiki and have a block on a different wiki. However I do think these editors should be flagged for further nuanced discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems clear to me that the WMF needs to do more screening of folks that sign up for conferences. Perhaps the list of conference attendees needs to be shared with anti-abuse groups such as the stewards and enwiki ArbCom, who can investigate anyone suspicious and provide recommendations to the WMF about who should be declined/refunded. I absolutely do not want to be rubbing shoulders with WP:LTAs at conferences. These folks should never be able to get a badge. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Wikimedia events should definitely consider having more eyes from trusted on-wiki groups to not just help review registrants, but be a part of the conference T&S discussions when possible. No one person or group knows all the disputes, bad actors, and community issues. Expanding the list to more folks who have ears to the ground and work on anti-abuse on the daily provides more coverage to detect and share concerns. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, ScottishFinnishRadish, for both trying everything to protect us and for levelling with us. This WMF inaction—and mendacity over security at the conference—is outrageous. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like T&S/Legal may have been technically correct that the edits here and on Wiktionary didn't quite meet the standard for a ban under the global child protection policy, which is a bit higher a standard than is found in our local policy. But the threat to show up to headquarters in person (worded in a way that made clear the interest was in anywhere that Wikimedia could be interacted with in the real world) absolutely should have changed that analysis, and banned or not, there should have never been a way for him to attend a WMF-affiliated event, especially when (AFAIK) he wasn't even hiding his damn username. False promises of event security just compound that already blatant error. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 21:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely right. – SJ + 00:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I learned (the hard way) years ago (after countless death and rape threats, and "outing"-attempts), that WMF's Trust and Safety is not the least interested with the safety of us "ordinary" editors; it is only interested in the safety of the WMF. I welcome the rest of you to the club. Huldra (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Yngvadottir says, thanks for both the work you guys have done on this, and the transparency. Probably the wrong place to ask, and IANAL, and maybe I misunderstood, etc, etc, but could someone please explain why T&S has to be able to "legally justify" an SF-ban? Nobody has a legal right to attend WMF functions, right? My understanding has always been that, if they wanted to, they could ban me because I'm not a Giants fan, and I'd have no legal recourse. I think they can ban anyone for any reason, as long as it isn't related to the person being in a protected class. Right? Even if the WMF has a policy about not banning people who aren't Giants fans, couldn't they still prevent me from attending anyway? What right would I be suing to protect? Or what contract would have been broken? What am I not understanding? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has a legal right to attend our community events, or any event. No justification is needed beyond community norms, which this obviously satisfied. – SJ + 00:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this is extra unsettling when I consider that I was one of the few editors to interact with the account in question at WT:CHILDPROTECT and was in the room that day when he walked in with the gun. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metal detectors should have been the bare minimum even without the message from Weston. The fact that someone getting a gun into an event and brandishing it has not happened sooner, is miracle. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 22:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone you discussed this with onsite after the incident, I'm glad 1) nobody was injured, and 2) you are able to relay this information to the community. BusterD (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was one of the organizers of the 2016 WikiConference North America in San Diego. There was an attendee who threatened to disrupt the conference and we worked closely with James Alexander and his team at Trust and Safety. As a result, we had a plan in place for when he arrived (complete with code words so we could alert other organizers discreetly) and were able to intercept him at the registration desk without incident.
    This is what should have happened in New York City this weekend. Given the professionalism of 2016 Trust and Safety I’ve long been an advocate of the professionals taking over these issues and not leaving them in the hands of untrained volunteers, some of whom have in the past put my personal safety and privacy at risk either through malice or incompetence. However, I’m rethinking that stance since here we have an example of an untrained volunteer who has acted in an exemplary manner and paid professionals who have proved themselves incompetent.
    From what I observed that day, Maryana Iskander and the WMF employees who were there in person acted in an equally exemplary manner in the wake of the incident in NYC. The WMF is certainly not perfect, but it has been the recipient of much undeserved criticism from the community over the years that has been hyperbolic and sometimes downright unhinged. However, in the case of their failure to alert the conference organizers of this man’s threats, those responsible at the WMF are deserving of all that criticism and more. I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say this should be a fireable offense for whoever is responsible for this failure. Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, how awful, and I don't have much to add, to what has already been said. But I cannot help but note how this appalling situation coincides with the controversy of the BoT removing candidates from the ballot. Maggie says, below, that WMF is doing some self-examination. I hope that's for real, and not just boilerplate. And it needs to be some very deep examination. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • How utterly unacceptable, on every level. This sort of public clarity should have come from T&S in their own swift post-mortem. Both community arbs & event organizers should have access to lists used for event screening to help flag concerns. Thank you SFR for the persistent efforts in advance, and for sharing these details now. – SJ + 00:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep respect and thanks to SFR for handling the original case (I wondered about making the block myself but decided to leave the decision for a higher-up), and for the full report. Wikipedia attracts all kinds and some are deeply disturbed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perplexed that the same WMF that gave us the WP:FRAMBAN refused to take action in this circumstance. TarnishedPathtalk 01:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One note is that today's WMF is clearly a different WMF than the one that gave us FRAM. When I was on ArbCom, a principal worry on our WMF colleagues' minds was avoiding another FRAM issue. There were times that I wish WMF was more willing to take an office action, and you can bet that one reason why is that there are many layers of organizational scar issue at WMF resulting from FRAM. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes perfect sense to me, actually. From my experience with T&S, that situation caused them to become much more conservative wrt issuing global bans, for better… or for worse…. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a huge difference between blocking a well-known admin globally for only a year (which was a very unusual course of action for T&S to take) and banning someone who has made a handful of edits, violates the child protection policy, and threatens to show up to in person events. Your lack of faith in the T&S as an arb is concerning to me because it makes me wonder how they've reacted in other scenarios that I don't know about as an ordinary admin. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean the obvious difference between this and FRAM is that that ban was imposed from above, without warning and in a highly unusual manner, after Wikipedia's community governance had specifically declined to do anything; whereas this was requested, repeatedly, by Wikipedia's elected representatives after they took action via the normal policy-based route and the WMF refused to take action. If ArbCom had banned Fram locally and then asked WMF to take further action (and it did so), people might still have been mad at ArbCom but I doubt they'd have been mad at WMF, and even objections to ArbCom probably wouldn't have been very severe provided the ban was done in accordance with policy and ArbCom's existing procedures. If the WMF doesn't understand that difference then they didn't really learn what they needed to learn from WP:FRAM - the reason it got a backlash was because it felt like a threat to Wikipedia's model of community governance, not because the community is intrinsically opposed to the WMF doing anything at all. --Aquillion (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to express my deep appreciation to SFR and ArbCom for having proactively followed up on this user for many months, and join those calling for process improvements for event screening. We should not need to count on our luck and the heroism of our community members to protect us, and I hope that we will see the significant process improvements that Maggie Dennis says below that the WMF is reviewing.
    One thing I would like to ask of WMF is to more properly resource Trust and Safety. Someone mentioned to me the other day (and I don't think this is private in any way) that T&S Operations (which is the unit that does all of the sanctions and enforcement and evaluation and so forth) is literally four people. And each case disposition then needs to be so well documented that it goes through many layers of review and approval, spending yet more of T&S's limited capacity. I think one reason we're likely to hear from WMF that the screening process was not as comprehensive this time is that they just don't have the staff time to resource more thoroughness. And that's something I hope that the Foundation will better invest in during the next annual planning process. I bet that even a modest increase of 4 additional FTEs would do wonders; this would be money well spent.
    I do want to express my concern that ArbCom here has revealed too much information publicly here. While I appreciate the transparency, I think it may have been unwise to have quoted a VRTS system email (for which the Committee acknowledges breaching an NDA in this announcement) and referenced oversighted information in this announcement, when we as a community could have gotten the Committee's overall narrative without ArbCom members having to breach any NDA. When I was an ArbCom member, having access to nonpublic information and collaboration with the WMF was key to fulfilling my role successfully on behalf of the community. I think the cavalier "breaking the ANPDP" in this announcement would affect WMF's willingness to be as open. In other words, if I were to be joining the WMF today, I'd have to think very carefully about revealing any private information with enwiki ArbCom, which in turn would reduce ArbCom's ability to serve the community.
    All in all, I want to express my thanks again to the Committee for its efforts to keep us safe as a community, all while I'm sure many of you are also still processing Friday's events yourselves. It is much appreciated. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am someone who was in attendance, seated in the third row for the keynote, and someone who has had to report harassment and threats to T&S and law enforcement. I have many thoughts about the events of last Friday and about this statement. At lot of things need to be taken seriously going forward, and we will need to have some difficult discussions, both the community of editors and the foundation, jointly. No one was hurt, this time. This is the second conference impacted by outside threats to our safety. A good friend who knew of unrelated threats to me nearly a year ago cautioned me to deeply consider my participation in WCNA given the severity of those other threats. Sadly, for different reasons, she was almost proven right. Imzadi 1979 → 05:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really surprised (hear shocked) to read that there were no physical and metal check at the entrance of the conference. All the last ones I attended had this type of screening, which seems to me to be more or less mandatory once we get over 50+ attendants, or as soon as we have « notable » and extended-rights people attending. And this in particular in a country were so many citizens are armed. Anthere (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate SFR's explanation but I'm really at a loss as to how a WMF ban could have changed anything for the better. Nardog (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation response

Hello, everyone. I’m Maggie Dennis, the Vice President who oversees the Trust & Safety teams, the Human Rights Team, and the Committee Support team (who liaises with EnWP ArbCom, among other committees). I want to acknowledge what was shared here. What happened on Friday at Wikiconference North America was awful. I know I speak for far more than myself when I say we remain deeply concerned for all impacted, especially those who were present at the event.

After the incident, the Foundation immediately began a review of its protocols related to event security, including procedures for screening event attendance. We also started revisiting the standards for Office Actions such as bans from the Foundation.

In terms of event security, there is a process already underway within the Foundation to revisit and review event security measures for upcoming conferences in other locations. We will be working closely with event organizers for upcoming community events that are scheduled in the coming months and will increase joint communications about security measures that are being implemented. We will continue to work with Conference Organizing Committees (COTs) on-the-ground to jointly protect Wikimedia events, which will include assessing, revising and implementing improved processes for screening event attendees.

In terms of office actions, we are already in active conversations with English Arbitration Committee members about improving our approach and will be inviting the views of others, such as the U4C, and broader community as well as those conversations evolve. Some changes can be implemented swiftly, while others may need a careful eye towards maintaining community independence. It’s always been a balance, and we are committed to working with ArbCom, the U4C, and others to figure out how to strike the balance better. We need to respect the autonomy of communities and avoid overreach from a central governance standpoint. At the same time, we need to provide the support needed by volunteers, especially functionaries and users with extended rights who put themselves on the line by enforcing policies.

I understand that there will be questions that we can’t answer to everyone’s satisfaction, particularly about case specifics. But I want you to know that we are taking this very seriously

Maggie Dennis –Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things to consider in your active discussions -- not only for events. Plenty of self-examination is in order, and not just from the WMF -- also ArbCom and T&S might re-examine. 1) My local police were absolutely wonderful in giving me round-the-clock protection, but I got nothing from T&S in the way of help. Most of the help I got was from a former arb. 2) I am not of the opinion that ArbCom is always sufficiently concerned about the safety of Wikipedians either, and would be interested in being part of any private discussions on that matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Instead of trying to involve specific editors in private discussions, I would like WMF to host a space where all Wikipedians could publish or submit their thoughts on this issue. I am personally disappointed that this hasn't been announced yet. This is me speaking in an individual capacity, not on behalf of ArbCom or WikiClubs I am part of. Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would help also, but there is very little I could say publicly that I haven't already said here. In one case, my own safety. In the second and third cases, the safety of others regarding two different arbcases. I feel fairly confident that Maggie would listen, but less confident that ArbCom will welcome public examination, nor would a public examination help the victims. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Maybe Mdennis (WMF) can suggest some places where Wikipedians can speak privately with a WMF staff member, if they want. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to second what a recent commentor said in response to Maryana Iskander's comment on the mailing list [3]. I'm paraphrasing a bit here but they basically said that the statement about not sharing details about what happened comes across in a slightly different light in hindsight. I remember a brief speech being given about how we shouldn't talk to the press while we were at the event as well. I hope SFR was not pressured to act a certain way because the WMF was concerned about reputational damage. I wouldn't have nearly been that cynical a few weeks back but the recent events surrounding the board of trustees (and this situation in particular) has really diminished some of the faith I previously had in the WMF. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, SFR. To preface, I've had a lot of praise for many of the people involved, including some of the organizers and WMF staff. In general, I'm hugely impressed with this community for the way everyone handled a terrible situation. This is, however, an important "how to do better next time" thread. So some comments/questions for folks:

  1. I agree with Tamzin that even if the initial block didn't rise to the level of the global child protection policy, the communications after the ban sound like they warranted global action. That said, without seeing the content of those communications, it's hard to say. i.e. "I would be happy to set up a meeting with you at your offices if possible" vs "if you don't unban me I'll come to where you work". It sounds, from SFR's description of the events, that not listening to arbcom was a substantial blunder here, though.
  2. But if a global ban were issued, would that have actually affected his attendance? Presumably any search that would turn up a global ban would also turn up a child protection block, right?
  3. I do not think the WMF does the screening for Wikicon; rather, I think it's typically a volunteer job. Is it something staff should be doing? Is it something volunteers want the WMF to be doing? Are there tools the WMF could build to simplify the process for volunteers? What would prevent someone from just giving a different username? We don't require attendees to have any username at all.
  4. Should any indef on any project affect someone's in-person attendance at such an event? What about indefs for specific offenses (child protection, but also perhaps harassment, stalking, doxing, or other behaviors that target a person)?
    The question of what to do with blocked users who want to come to in-person events has been a tricky question for many years now. I can think of a few users who have been indeffed on one project or another and attend in-person events. Sometimes it's because they haven't been problematic in person, or are even highly constructive, but I think it usually does involve some assessment of the block reasons. I don't know of any affiliate (among the few where I'd be aware) that has a blanket policy about blocked users, but they really should, even if it's heavily qualified in case-by-caseness.
  5. How much security do we really want at these events? Having a lot of security sure does change the tone of the event. Wikipedia is more "serious business" and less "DIY encyclopedia" as of late, but I worry -- echoing many people who made this point at the conference -- that having a ton of security could signal things about the community (that it is a dangerous place, that we are doing controversial things, that we are viable targets, etc.). I am torn, and do not know the answer to this.
  6. I see some claims above about security being promised but not there. I looked for where this came from, since I was surprised, and found this line: There will be professional security guards present at Civic Hall as well as both evening receptions at Prime Produce and Hyatt Place.. Were they there, and perhaps just not enough to stop this from happening, or was security not present on the first day? Putting aside how much security there should be, it is important to set expectations properly, as this is a detail that will be very important to some people's feeling of safety. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On your (Rhododendrites') last point, I wonder if there are different cultural perspectives on what "normal" security looks like, and if so whether that is impacting perceptions on what was promised and/or what was provided? I wasn't there, and I've never been to New York so I can't speak from a personal perspective, but I'm currently reading a novel (very well researched and based in part on the author's personal experience) where the difference in attitude to security at police stations in different neighbourhoods of the same California city forms a minor plot point. This makes me suspect that someone from one cultural background could easily understand the term "enhanced security" very differently to someone from a different cultural background. I appreciate this is starting to veer away from the primary point of this discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cultural expectations sure do differ. I attend a lot of conferences professionally, and even when federal elected officials attend, there are no bag checks or metal detectors. So there is certainly a difference depending on context. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick clarifying note for point 3: having helped screen registrants in the past in the capacity of a WCNA organizer, the registrants have typically been reviewed by both a subset of volunteer WCNA organizers and WMF T&S staff (but I do not know the screening details for this year). Having WMF T&S be part of the registrant review is vital IMO, given their privileged information on banned individuals, on an international scale over time. Novem's suggestion above about including members from other trusted groups who work in this space (e.g. ArbCom, Stewards) is also good IMO. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify the point about security since there has been a lot of misinformation floating around. To be clear, Wikimedia NYC did hire professional security for the conference. Of course we knew nothing about any of the history surrounding the perpetrator otherwise we would have taken more advanced precautions. There were three security guards that day, one at the front door security desk and two security guards who started on the first floor making sure all attendees getting into the elevator had a conference badge and then they floated amongst the floors of the conference. We also had one professional security guard at the evening reception at Prime Produce the day before. After the incident we increased the number of security guards to five, began implementing bag checks, and asked for NYPD to be stationed outside. Prior to the start of the conference, we requested and received the WMF global ban list from WMF trust and safety and reviewed all registered attendees against it. We now know that the person we needed to look out for hadn't received a global ban so they weren't on the list. We are not taking any of this lightly and this incident will definitely help shape how we do things differently in the future. There are lots of lessons to be learned here. But I wanted to clear up the question about security because it's important for folks to share accurate information and recognize that the organizing committee for the conference was thinking about it and tried our best to plan for safety concerns with the knowledge we had at the time. Pacita (WikiNYC) (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pacita. That clears a few things up. On the "for next time" list, it does seem like it would be good to look beyond the global ban list. That's something I supported before this incident (long ago, and unrelated to wikicon, to be clear), but we could never quite settle on a threshold/criteria for non-admittance. It would be fairly easy to create a script which takes a CSV of registered usernames and generates a table of username, project where they're blocked, block duration, block reason, and blocking admin. That would make it easy to catch things like blocks for threats, child protection, harassment, doxing and other things that might be enough to get kicked off one project but not quite enough for a global ban. A user friendly tool rather than a script would be better, of course, but a script would be pretty easy. That said, none of this addresses the obvious reaction to screening: don't use your blocked username. I don't think we want to prohibit all non-Wikipedians and new users from attending. I'd imagine those signing up with a child protection-blocked account are the exception among potentially problematic attendees. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, dealing with people who admit to being users with active serious-bad-stuff blocks is a necessary element of security, but far from sufficient. As to what would be sufficient, I think most of us would agree that, like, full professional background checks of every attendee would discourage an unacceptably large number of people from participating. But I think the downsides of requiring verification of an account with nontrivial editing history, while real, are small enough that the security upsides are worth it. There could be some alternate procedure to verify with T&S for someone who doesn't have an account but is active in or adjacent to the Wikimedia community, and users with accounts could still bring +1s. That still leaves open windows for social engineering, but much narrower than the current wide-open door. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, bag/metal-detector screening at entry points, as highlighted by Risker below, is relatively unobtrusive, isn't contingent on a complicated calculus of community status, and would keep out the more dangerous end of threats that personae non gratae might pose. signed, Rosguill talk 04:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. A dangerous person without a weapon is a greater threat than a safe person with one. I'm not against bag checks and metal detectors, but they're not particularly difficult to evade, there's lots of things a weapon can be improvised out of, and even a totally unarmed person can be very physically dangerous. You can't make an event like this safe(r) without making the guest list safe(r). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Consider, for example, sexual harassment and assault. I would be greatly displeased to find that someone who had sexually harassed a Wikimedian was admitted to an event, and sexual harassment is in no way impeded by bag checks, nor has anyone managed to develop a detection wand for this purpose. -- asilvering (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that a wand and a bag check would be a good way to improve security. It would also have a deterrent effect. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
having a ton of security could signal things about the community (that it is a dangerous place, that we are doing controversial things, that we are viable targets, etc) – The problem is that all of these statements have become increasingly true, especially within the last year. The key is that we've mostly seen it play out in politics, the courts, and the media, and real-life threats have historically been caused by personal grudges instead of aggression toward the community as a whole. I don't hold Trust and Safety or any other part of the WMF responsible for what happened at the conference, but I believe they have a duty to respond to these issues and to explore how they can improve editor safety, which has not been one of the WMF's strengths to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
having a ton of security could signal things about the community (that it is a dangerous place). I think this is a reasonable argument to make before something happened. But now that something has happened, I think we should react to it by increasing security. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having attended many, many Wikimedia-related events on four continents, and being fairly well-informed of practices at other regional events, it sounds as though there is a disconnect with respect to security across these events. Security screening (bag checks in particular) are fairly normalized in many European settings and have been for several years. Even more in-depth security screening (metal detectors, bag x-raying) is normalized in just about every public building in the African cities where I have been in the last few years, to the point that one goes through such security measures to go to normal shopping malls, any hostelry, any museum, and so on. I'm at a bit of a loss as to why bag checks (at minimum) have not been instituted for Wikicons in North America, especially after a bomb threat at the venue in 2023. Statistically speaking, the United States has a notably higher incidence of violent situations than almost all of the other countries that provide more extensive screening.

Whether or not the person involved in this incident was office-banned by the WMF (which includes attendance at WMF-sponsored off-wiki events), all it would have taken for them to be allowed to attend was giving a fake name; I cannot recall IDs being verified on check-in to any event anywhere. Having a security officer somewhere on-site is not the same as having security actively present in a room, or actively carrying out screening activities.

I did not attend this event, but believe me I have heard so much about it from so many people through many channels. I believe strongly that some of the actions and reactions we have been seeing in the last several days are perfectly within the expected range of responses to what has been a very traumatic event. There has been a lot more anger, a lot more introspection, a lot more discourse that is out-of-character from many of the people who have gone through this experience. Those who were there may well not realize that they have been exhibiting these changes; people tend to have a "keep calm and carry on" attitude. I do urge the WMF to hire a team of counsellors and debriefers and make them available to all of the attendees of this conference. As I recall, counsellors were made available at a previous conference when a scholar unexpectedly passed away during the event weekend, so this is not unprecedented.

It is clear that Trust & Safety has already initiated its review of this event and related actions, and I encourage them to be bold and to make it really clear what they need: more staff, more input into security requirements for events, changes to the risk management matrices for "problematic" users, whatever it is. Having been to the WMF offices with their attendant security processes, I think they may have developed a bit of a false sense of security that doesn't apply outside of the parameters of that security system. Institutional memory reminds us that they have had people show up in a threatening way before, and have had staff walk in during a carefully planned heist, and that is exactly why the office is now in a high security building. Risker (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a really good point about counselors, Risker. I was talking to one person who was at the conference but not in the room at the time of the incident, and they said something to the effect of "It sounded a lot scarier till we learned no shots had been fired". Well I wasn't at the conference, but I have been in a situation where someone, face-to-face, threatened to shoot me, and I'll tell you, the fact that no shots were fired in the end really did not change my sense afterward of having almost been shot. And that shit took me a good while to work through. It's only in the past couple decades that the mental health establishment has started to understand just how central trauma is for our psychologies. A big part of that is that trauma isn't deterministically predictable based on input. Two people can experience the same trauma, and one shrugs it off and the other needs years of therapy; those can both be healthy responses, and it's not like the first person is callous or the second is weak. For attendees who are closer to the second category, it will likely take many of them a while to even process how they're feeling. As I recall, when I was almost shot, even though I did talk to my therapist within 24 hours of the event, it took me maybe 3 months to be able to talk about it without getting caught up in flashbacks. I hope the WMF will be able to provide resources going forward to people who need to work through anything.
On that note, @Ocaasi, I hope you don't mind if I drop you a ping here? Stephen Harrison describes your "mental health first aid" toward the would-be shooter, which is really admirable and deserves mention alongside the heroism of Pharos and Fuzheado's tactical response, and you've done some of the most effective writing I've seen on mental health in the Wikimedia movement. So, if you're able, I'd love to hear your perspective. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tamzin. I'm going to repost what I wrote on Facebook, because you are absolutely right that trauma responses immediately and and especially post-event can catch people off guard:
Friday morning a gunman entered the Wikimedia North America conference. No one was hurt, and the particular details aren't really the point of this post.
The point is that Friday afternoon I sobbed for 2 minutes straight. Really ugly crying right into my bed. It was the release of trauma, and I NEEDED it. But it caught me by surprise, unguarded in my hotel room.
The following two days, as the conference bravely resumed, my attention to my surroundings was alarmingly hyper-sensitive. Every conversation, sharp noise, or sudden movement registered intensely.
I'm not looking for sympathy or concern: I have an army of medications and therapists.
What I want to be very clear about for the attendees of the conference is that this kind of response is entirely perfectly NORMAL, and even HEALTHY.
That's the message. If you were there and you are now--or later--anxious, vigilant, scared, sad, guilt-ridden, exhausted, or even unusually "up", it's ok. You're going to be ok.
There are people in the movement who you can talk to, hotlines you can call, and of course professional counselors. If you want someone to just listen...reach out. We're here for you. We're here for each other.
I've also published a draft guide on mental health first aid, which any editor but especially T&S and organizers may find useful: https://medium.com/@jakeorlowitz/mental-health-first-aid-a-compassionate-guide-c1a8cdfe42d4
I think it's essential that we respond to what happened as a major psychological event as well as a security lapse, neither eclipses the other to me in importance. Ocaasi t | c 05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recall there were security checks at the 2015 event in the National Archives building. [4]. That felt perfectly fine. Should be standard. Andreas JN466 05:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bag check and/or a metal detector at the entrance is the level of security I would expect at a big WMF conference. I've never been to a WMF event, but I understand that those in San Francisco or Silicon Valley are always held in secure buildings, requiring wallet ID checks at a minimum. I think Risker is right about a disconnect, "a bit of a false sense of security", if neither of these is the norm in other US cities. With a bomb threat in the past, I consider that unacceptable. Quite apart from the fact that this person should not have been admitted to the venue in the first place, it isn't a safe space if it's easily infiltrated with a loaded gun. Why did the security guards not stop this guy? Yngvadottir (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A guy with a gun who threatened to bring it with him to a Wikimedia conference was not deemed as dangerous?? Does the WMF even give a fuck about the reports that they receive? How many of the reports submitted to the Trust and Safety (T&S) team were deemed serious after they "carefully weighed the evidence"?
Genuinely, I've stopped reporting the death threats that I've been receiving for the past year because of how little they seem to care, and I'm pretty sure that telling someone who's from a country where people who commit politically-motivated assassinations are let loose easily (or are sometimes not even caught because the government couldn't care less, unless that they're put pressure by some influential human rights org), AND that his grandfather was a victim of such atrocity (assassinated in 1992 by Ali Salem al-Beidh himself btw) that the death threats that he received were not deemed dangerous was the right thing to do by them. After all, what could they have done, right? I'm nowhere near the WMF ig. But allowing someone who could have potentially massacred many of the volunteers who keep this project alive to go unchecked, especially after the WMF was warned about him, is simply unacceptable. This is pure incompetence, and the entire T&S team should resign in shame. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A guy with a gun who threatened to bring it with him to a Wikimedia conference. Unless I missed something, the person never mentioned a gun before the actual incident. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae no you're right. I misread SFR's statement 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdennis (WMF):, thank you for sharing this. I appreciate the transparency and I will not be criticizing any person in particular who worked on the risk assessment for this event, as I still don't know (nor particularly want) enough details to do that. Our risk is on the rise (and I've seen security become ever more strict at our cons throughout the years). Yet, I personally think we entered a new era. The tensions in the world are palpable. Look no further than the political violence in the USA in the last year.
At the same time, I do not think that more security personnel or more metal detectors are the solution to this problem. Let's also look at something like TwitchCon this year, with the Emiru incident. Twitchcon also has a high approachability of people and a high risk of internet loonies mixing with very normal and genuine people just wanting to have a good time. There the security wasn't even up to previous years standards, even though it was supposed to be higher than in years previous because people were so concerned. Particularly the hired security there did not seem to understand the risk profile of some of the creators being at a specific spot at a specific time.
There, from a glance, I think the event organizer, T&S and the hired security team created a somewhat mixed responsibility that I think is ... problematic for events like this going forward. Cyber security and online security is not the same as in-person security and personal protection. In person security is a speciality. Security for events like this is best done with very good information sharing, proper planning and briefing of hired security personnel beforehand and then ensuring that the experience is forwarded to future instances of such events.
I think the Foundation should consider hiring a fulltime person in charge of organizing safety for in-person events. This person should have a background in Executive personal protection (instead of cyber and online security, moderation etc) and can be in charge of handling this information, selecting and briefing hired security personnel, ensuring a consistent and risk appropriate approach for the event and the attending crowd (incl screening process), with knowledge of Wikimedia specific context. I think we cannot afford to be naive on this, and hiring out this responsibility per event any longer. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1318345215"