This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Original announcement

These parts of the statement seem to conflict; perhaps this could be clarified? "Anyone found to be goading or baiting him may be two-way interaction banned, as an arbitration enforcement action, for no longer than one month. Enforcement blocks (including of Ottava) may be no longer than three days for the first block, and up to one month for repeated violations." versus "Should Ottava violate these restrictions he may be blocked, as an arbitration enforcement action, for up to one month for the first violation by a consensus of uninvolved administrators." --Rschen7754 18:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I read it as "Enforcement blocks [for IBAN violations] (including of Ottava)...", whereas the other clause is for breach of these restrictions. Amazing how much wordsmithing can go into something and still leave it unclear... GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between this and Carl Hewitt that prompted it, but not this, to be announced at WP:AN? Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

People *remember* Ottava Rima. Personally I think this is a horrible mistake Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So we can discuss it here, as long as we dont make any mention or link to his global block log which shows why he was blocked on every damn project he contributed at? Well Nyttend apparantly you have your answer. Arbcom dont actually want anyone to comment or discuss this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

According to meta:Special:CentralAuth/Ottava Rima, he's not currently blocked anywhere except for Commons. Is there a page where we can see an account's block logs from all wikis? Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, it was probably my fault it was not posted at AN. I'm still new at the job and I was in a bit of a hurry; thanks for putting it up there. User:Only in death, that's a really clever answer, but not everything is a conspiracy. Maybe. Plus, it doesn't say you can't discuss him; you will have to try and do it in a civilized manner. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I see only "a consensus of uninvolved administrators" can sanction OR if he should violate the new restrictions. Has the committee given some thought to who is an involved admin for this purpose? Anybody (whether they were then an admin or not) who commented on OR's 2009 RFA, or on the 2009 RFAR, or who had adversarial (or supportive) dealings with OR before he was blocked on 22 Dec 2009? Or? I'm by no means panting to be part of such a consensus myself, I'm more just curious. It's sure to come up if there should be a problem with OR's editing, which we all hope won't happen. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

  There can't possibly be a single admin who was promoted prior to 2009 who is uninvolved with Ottava Rima. It does not compute. Katie^talk 17:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  Well, that was my thought too, but I was hoping to hear from an arbitrator whether they had thought through the uninvolved thing or not. Hopefully with an explanation of why arbitration enforcement of OR's restrictions can't be entrusted to the discretion of a single admin, the way we are apparently trusted to deal with "anyone found to be goading or baiting him". If it really can't, I agree with Katie that uninvolved oldtimers would be like snowballs in hell. So how about changing the phrasing in the amendment from "consensus of uninvolved administrators" to "consensus of administrators who joined Wikipedia after 20 Dec 2009"? (That was when the original one-year block was placed.) I believe such a simplified definition would forestall much lawyering. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

  I am retired, so this is probably irrelevant, but I was reading this page and thought I'd mention it. I was promoted in July 2007 (a year when there were hundreds of admin promotions, some of whom actually might have been justified), and I'm pretty sure I never had any dealings with Ottava. So if I didn't (and I used to frequent the drama boards), I'm sure there were plenty of others as well. Anyway, back to retirement. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  OTOH, I have no idea if I am uninvolved or not. I'm a 2007 promotion as well, and Ottava's name jumped off the page when I noticed this thread on my watchlist, but I recall literally nothing of his history at this point beyond the fact that he was divisive enough to warrant a six year ban by ArbCom. And certainly do not recall any interactions I may have had or comments I may have made. Now, I am extremely unlikely to use the tools in regard to a controversial figure myself, but if such a discussion were to be held, I have no idea if I could legitimately comment as an "uninvolved administrator". Hopefully Ottava makes this discussion moot, however. Resolute 23:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Bish, this was a difficult thing. Obviously Ottava had and still has enemies, and the concern was that one single admin with a bone to pick could get this poetic train off the rails with a quick block or whatever. But not every admin who voted for or against Ottava in an RfA or an ArbCom case or an ANI discussion is INVOLVED: that's stretching INVOLVEDness out too much. For now, can we just let the guy write content? He's got some serious restrictions, but he appealed successfully, acknowledging past wrongs, so let him get back to it. Even those who hate him know he's written good stuff (though on some boooooring poets!)--this is a happy occasion. So let's try and make this a workable situation, from which we can all benefit. I'm counting on your help too, Bish, and I've sent chocolates and bourbon to Black Kite to goad them out of retirement. Give it up, BK; you can't spend the rest of your life fishing. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• This doesn't answer the question but there are admins who joined Wikipedia after 2009. I assume anyone weighing in on his case would familiarize themselves with the circumstances of his banning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned that's not necessary. Ottava's edits don't become better or worse because someone becomes better acquainted with his history. Just judge him fairly. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Drmies' comments and don't have much to add, except that this is going to be confusing, because I'm "OR" ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Or OR is Or, which is even more confusing. NE Ent 10:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I posted here objecting to the decision, but I was reverted. I guess someone thought my comment might hurt Ottava's feelings, and apparently protecting his feelings is more important than allowing free discussion. Everyking (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Admins are supposed to be aware of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, to enforce it, and to not break it themselves. You apparently seem to have made up your mind already about Ottava, who has been gone from the project for over half a decade (and people can change), and thus clearly shouldn't be acting as an administrator in his case--see Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools, item one, "non-neutrality". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • How on earth is it relevant that I'm an administrator? I was not "acting as an administrator", obviously. Are administrators not supposed to register their views on things like this? What I posted was essentially just a restatement of the ArbCom's official position on Ottava until a few days ago. Everyking (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • ArbCom doesn't often really have "official positions". There were past appeals of Ottava's where restrictions similar to this were floated, and they failed to pass more out of I think a general ennui and lack of will for someone to take charge, rather than any deep-seated validation that All Must Be Banned Forever. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • It's relevant because you should know what NPA says; because you are an admin you can hardly claim ignorance. You can state a view, maybe, though I don't see why your view would be relevant here--and ArbCom certainly never said what you said; what you said was not "essentially" a restatement of what ArbCom said six and a half years ago. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Maybe you can help me out, Drmies. Since I am maybe allowed to state a view, how could I state my personal point of view without violating NPA? Also: whose views are relevant here? And how would you characterize the ArbCom's assessment of Ottava six and a half years ago? Everyking (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Everyking, I wouldn't characterize it--I would point at it. Some personal points of view--as you know--simply cannot be stated here, because they may violate the BLP or NPA. This is nothing new. I can't tell you what I think of Ted Cruz of Vladimir Putin, or editor X, and fortunately it's not relevant to anything anyway. And your view--just like my view--on Ottava here, in this forum, is irrelevant as well; if there's anything to discuss here it's the decision and the restrictions, or the technicalities of the restrictions, not the editor. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
          • If I was characterizing it, I would use the same phrases I used in my reverted comment. But anyway, since we're only here to discuss the decision/restrictions, how do we discuss them without discussing the editor they pertain to? I think it's a bad decision, and that assessment is based on observation of the editor's past activities. So can I say it's a bad decision, but can't say why it's a bad decision? Everyking (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
            • Don't be silly, of course you can. Within the bounds of what's proper. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
              • In that case I'll try again: Ottava said lots of mean things to lots of people and caused lots of disruption. He said so many mean things, to so many people, for so little reason, that pretty much all of us, including the ArbCom, concluded that he could not work collaboratively as part of a community. The ArbCom has banned many other people for doing much less, or nothing at all, and I think it would be more productive to review other cases and let the verdict in this one stand. Now, is that version a personal attack too? Or is it "within the bounds of what's proper"? Everyking (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
                • Thank you. But please note that "review other cases" can only take place if those editors ask us to consider unbanning them. We deal with many of those cases on a regular basis (GorillaWarfare keeps count better than I do--STEM and all that), and I would like to unban more banned editors who, after some time has passed, show a measure of understanding or contrition and state they will abide by our codes of behavior, contributing to the project in their field of expertise and thus enhancing it. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
                  • Why wait for appeals? If the decision was bad, just go ahead and undo it. You don't even need to dig into the archives to find these cases—what about those two guys you banned earlier this year in secret proceedings contrary to policy? Just fix it. You can do it today. Everyking (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
                    • Who said the decision (this decision, I suppose you're talking about) was bad? As for the rest, it's a bit late already, and I'm not ready to negate "continuing harassment of other editors", for instance. Everyking, I wish you would take serious business seriously. There is no joy in banning. I am happy a user got unbanned, and it didn't happen overnight, but it's worth the effort. But I have the feeling that everything I say to you just gets turned into ridicule, and that's depressing my otherwise good spirits, so I'll leave you to it. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                      • My point is that it's not necessary to wait for appeals before you can do anything. Don't act like your hands are tied. If you sincerely would like to unban more editors, pick some for consideration and let's see how it goes. Everyking (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                        • While I see your point, there is benefit to reviewing bans/blocks only once the user has appealed: it took three weeks for us to come to a decision and draft the terms of the unban in this case, so it's good to know that the editors appealing their sanctions actually wish to return before spending that kind of time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                          • People might not want to appeal after they've been gone for years, and they might not want to be kicked around again. They might be happy to contribute if it was stress-free, but might not feel it's worth the trouble to jump through hoops, especially if they're expected to express "contrition" even though they don't believe they were in the wrong, and especially if their last encounters with Wikipedia's processes were negative and frustrating. Everyking (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                            • This would have to be done via a community wide RFC rather than by fiat by arbcom; the sticking point (and why my "Extinct" concept remains a userspace draft) is I haven't come up with a good proposal to deal with real or perceived ban/block evasions. NE Ent 14:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                              • Why? The ArbCom is perfectly free to unban people it banned in the past. I mean, nothing wrong with an RfC, but there's nothing stopping the ArbCom from unbanning more people on its own. Everyking (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                    • Better yet, we ought to do something like User:NE_Ent/Extinct (draft started last November). Briefly, all sanctions should have an automatic sunset (three years? five years?) NE Ent 20:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
                      • I think ideally, we would just declare an amnesty for any accounts that have been blocked for a certain number of years, while also drafting a short list of users who, due to particularly egregious conduct, would not be included in the amnesty. Everyking (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

break

• • • I'm unclear on why you feel that the "official position" of the Arbitration Committee was that Ottava Rima should be banned for life. He was indefinitely banned (indefinite, not infinite), but always given the opportunity for appeal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • The restrictions are so tight that widespread panic is needless. I'm very pleased to see him back (personally), though I realise that the limited capacity is a necessity and shudder at the carnage a full return might lead to. And to say, I consider him somewhat of a (battered) friend. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Officially, lifetime bans don't exist, but an indefinite ArbCom ban is essentially a lifetime ban unless the banned party appeals successfully. If Ottava had not appealed, would the ban have ever been lifted? Everyking (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Okay, I guess this is perhaps just a difference in interpretation. When I hear "lifetime ban," I think "an infinite ban that will never be overturned, regardless of any appeal." GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
          • At this point it might be nice if Ottava gave some indication of intent on his talk page. Not an act of contrition obv, but just how he is intending to approach and deal with all of this. From his perspective, none of this can be plesant. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

            • He better does not. The guy just does not know how to stop, and in this situation it is better for him not to start. (For full disclosure, I was promoted after 2009).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

              • Just let him get back to work. Ceoil, I saw you offered your assistance, for which I thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

                • Hmm Drmies, I suspect my cache with Ottava is quite low these days, and long ago I did interveane as mentor, and despite many share interests and overlap in articles, it was a case of two powder kegs crammed into a box of petrol dosed matches. Best that can be said is that we each gave as good as we got, and I remain fond of him since. My talk is always open to Ottava, if he wants to flirt/bitch/complain/chat; and I will be following his contributions because the subject area is interesting to me. Given the unprecedentedlynarrow condidtions, I think that "Just let him get back to work" is hard to fault, and sensible least we forget that what had been happening was posting of simple, followed by equally widespread hysteria over "proxying for a banned user" when it was tfr'ed to en. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

                  • For what it's worth, I'm an admin promoted in 2005 who I'm pretty certain has had no interaction with Ottava. The question is, how should we conduct point # 2? I doubt it would be WP:AFC reviews so can Ottava ping others or use help-me or something? Is this something we should we discuss and work on at Ottava's talk page or should the technical details be hashed out here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

This doesn't seem to have been written very carefully. Are you aware that you seem to have placed Pigsonthewing back on probation? (You rescinded the amendment that removed him from probation.) Perhaps it would be a good idea to state explicitly what remedies are supposed to apply to Pigsonthewing at this juncture. Looie496 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Looie496: It's my understanding that no ArbCom-imposed restrictions currently apply to Pigsonthewing; the ARCA thread makes that clear, although the motions' text are slightly ambiguous. It's all bureaucratic paper-pushing at this point; I don't think anyone would be silly enough to try to enforce the pre-review restrictions. (This is not in my role as a clerk and is not on behalf of the Committee.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It won't be just paper-pushing if trouble arises. If it does then admins will have to try to parse this gibberish and will pull their hair out. I say again that the Committee should explicitly state Pigsonthewing's current status. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

To my mind there’s a pretty substantial difference between being cautioned and being under probation: unlike the former, the latter implies definite and fairly immediate consequences.—Odysseus1479 23:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha, funny what nobody thinks of in context even for something that took a couple of weeks from proposing to passing. Looie496, L235 is right, there are no specific arbcom restrictions that apply to Pigsonthewing at this time, as I hope is clear from the original discussion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Gamaliel asked for this? If he doesn't want to take any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, why doesn't he just not take any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic? NE Ent 22:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and his request for this was quite explicit. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Ent and I don’t seem to agree on a whole lot, but I have to say that I’m puzzled too. The best way to not enforce arbitration decisions is not to enforce them, right? Does this apply as well to gender-related controversies, and biographies of people involved in gender-related controversies? And does it apply to new Arbitration cases, appeals of old cases, and requests for clarification? If so, this motion effectively reverses the most recent ArbCom election for a huge swath of ArbCom business: is that actually within ArbCom’s powers, and is there any precedent? It’s the final day of April (GMT): is this some sort of mirror world April 1 joke? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

At any rate it extends to GamerGate, which makes the above a rather blatant violation of your topic ban, no? Self-redaction is probably in order. GoldenRing (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Was this action taken to head off some kind of formal sanctions? (which is strongly implied by the use of "remedy" in the motion) If so, it might be a good thing if it led to (at least roughly) the same result with next to no drama. Otherwise, it's a bit unusual - though harmless at the end of the day. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A self-requested restriction can make sense as a commitment device or as a means of avoiding conflicts of interest. It might have been more clear if the request was on-wiki but whatever. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Just noting that my oppose was because I don't believe sanctions/a motion should be placed on a party to a case during that case except as a temporary injunction in response to ongoing issues. A request from a party to be banned from something which is in the scope of the case can and should definitely be considered but IMHO should be considered as part of the proposed decision not imposed during the evidence phase. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Gamaliel doesn't want to fight battle after battle after battle anymore, and so has arranged to make himself forbidden to do so. Kudos to Gamaliel and the committee, this is how it's supposed to work. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Nick-D, the use of the word 'remedy' is my error, at the last moment I added a copy-paste appeal clause and somehow missed that. It shouldn't have been included. No, this was not to head off any kind of formal sanction. Doug Weller talk 05:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Nick-D I've now corrected this, the word should have been decision, not remedy. Thanks for noticing this. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Signing? If anyone wants the ctte to give them a ban, just e-mail them and ask for one, you just have to convince enough of the members it is a good idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the reason for this was to get a better deal. It was the realization that the current case against him was almost certainly politically motivated, as regards to GG and American Politics. And this make further campaigns against him less likely.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

alanscottwalker is actually right, but of course it depends upon the reasons and the context. It's unusual but possible. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Miborovsky, there is no table. There's this thing called email, which is like Twitter but only the people this "email" got sent to get to read it. And you can do more words. If you like, you can send us one asking for a ban of sorts and we'll discuss it, in private. Gamaliel is not an animal, and did not--as far as I know--gain anything by this, except for respect, after taking what must have been a very difficult and painful decision; AGF pretty much requires you to do so, but of course even ArbCom or God almighty can't mandate respect. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Wow, I wondered why the above had been collapsed and had a look at the contribs. One of the features of Gamergate has been the amazing number of accounts that have been reactivated to join the fun, but the above is pretty special because Miborovsky's last edit before contributing to this case was in December 2011. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just another former admin who walked away and came back to find the inmates running the asylum. What you call "fun" is just another nail in the coffin for the puported neutrality of Wikipedia. Watching ArbCom do its best to give the impression that they're giving preferential treatment to one of their own is too funny for me to not comment upon. --Миборовский (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Since this motion makes it clear that GamerGate is relevant to the case, I would expect the clerks User:Amortias and User:L235 to restore the GamerGate-related evidence by other editors that they previously removed. Or, I would expect them to explain why they have not done so. You can't have it both ways, folks. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We haven't changed the scope so they shouldn't do that. I can understand why you are interpreting it this way, but that's an overinterpretation. We accepted a request from Gamaliel, we didn't impose this on our own initiative. If we'd done this on our own initiative then I'd agree with you. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm unsure why that should make a difference, to be honest. If evidence is relevant, it should be accepted. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, unlike the Iban that was implemented, this action is not noted on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. So, the self-requested ban might not be considered to be a part of the case proceedings and it might be seen as a separate arbitration motion of imposing a topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It was noted here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others#Arbitration_motion_restricting_Gamaliel NE Ent 23:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm My mistake. I didn't think of looking at the talk pages, just the main page and the Proposed Decision pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't care where it was noted, Black Kite. Of course this particular decision is GG related since it's about GG--that doesn't mean that GG is part of the case. If I were to parse this, I'd say an admin noted that they don't have full support of the community for their work in a specific area and they're doing the right thing. But I'm not parsing this. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• A more likely interpretation is that the drip-drip-drip of the gamergaters is succeeding, and Gamaliel is fed up with the off-wiki harassment and the on-wiki misguided commentary. Gamaliel might have chosen to stop monitoring the topic but making it official announces to everyone that it is over, and participants should switch to complaining about the next admin who monitors the area. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• What, exactly, "is over"? He asked for a ban on enforcing arbitration decisions, not a topic ban. He's therefore capable of editing or serving as a administrator on Gamergate topics, correct? Am I missing something here? Marteau (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  I think you're missing the fact that it seems that Gamaliel is sick and tired of GG and all it entails. You can't just accept this as a good-faith effort on Gamaliel's part? Johnuniq didn't miss it. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's just weird that evidence in regards to Gamaliel's conduct in the GG space was removed by clerks as being out of scope. Then this happens. I don't think anyone is particularly upset at the result of the motion, just the strangeness of how it's come about. Arkon (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  If he's truly 'sick and tired' of dealing with Gamergate I'm not sure why he's left the door open to editing and adminning it. This does have the potential of short-circuiting the process and preempting the consideration of a Gamergate restriction of real substance rather than symbolism. Marteau (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  The world is full of potential, almost as full as it is of needless speculation. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This is amazingly light considering the seriousness of Gamaliel's misconduct. Surely the matter is not going to be considered settled with this one weak restriction? Everyking (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What part of 'at his initiative' and the fact that the decision wasn't officially recorded as part of the case leads anyone to suggest the case is settled? It goes ahead as normal. And everyone, please don't turn speculation into fact. People have real lives and those lives can be complicated (well, real life usually is). Doug Weller talk 06:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this. This does address the primary administrative concern I had, and I would applaud Gamaliel for stepping up this way. I think it was the right thing to store faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I think this is the sort of thing an arbitration committee should make a habit of. OTHO, if Everyking's concern can be boiled down to "a day late and a dollar short", I absolutely empathize. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You May All Be Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Lots of people are speculating that this request is a confession of wrong-doing and an effort to head off greater sanctions. I think you all might be mistaken.

First, it wouldn’t work. Second, it would be irresponsible; an editor may do what they like, but an arbitrator is elected and responsible to their voters. Third: many of you have known Gamaliel for a long time; sometimes, weak-willed Wikipedians ask to be blocked because they can’t control their editing, but self-control is Gamaliel’s middle name. (Believe me: I have the scars to prove it.)

We know (and ArbCom knows) that Gamaliel received at least one murder threat on-wiki, in circumstances suggesting that the person making the threat knew where he lives (and also knew my travel schedule). We know (and ArbCom knows) that other threats of various kinds have been made off-wiki. We know (and the world knows) that trolls have developed a taste for sophisticated opposition research and have used it to damage careers and threaten family members.

If someone were threatening to punish an administrator if that administrator opposed them, how could the administrator prove that they would cease their opposition? Only by either (a) resigning the tools, or (b) having Arbcom ban them from the opponent’s area of interest.

I also observe that, in the event this scenario were the case, the Community on this page would have done a great deal to further the harassment and nothing to obstruct it or to assist its target. That is consistent with what I have come to expect of Wikipedia generally and ArbCom specifically, but it is deeply disappointing. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Far be from me but aren't you topic banned from this subject? Arguably, the Arbcom case is larger in scope but this discussion is about an admin's enforcement antics in an area where you are topic banned. Why in the world should you care? Is there any reason why someone shouldn't just collapse this section as entirely off-topic, particularly when you're going to blatantly discuss harassment against Gamaliel so blindly? Isn't there a policy that we protect victims by reducing our discussions of any harassment unless it's relevant? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The topic of this section is "Arbitration Motion Concerning Gamaliel". We are discussing this motion, and several editors have speculated here on the motivation behind it. I believe those speculations may be mistaken and offer an alternative explanation. I am not (as far as I am aware) topic-banned from the subject of Gamaliel, nor from the subject of Wikipedia governance, arbitration committee, harassment, or extortion; those are the matters I raise here.

The arbitrators have stated repeatedly that the scope of Gamaliel and others does not involve Gamergate. You apparently believe otherwise, but I fancy the arbitrators know their mind.

As a purely general observation: a very good way to encourage harassment and extortion is to pretend that it cannot exist. An excellent way to make harassment and extortion more effective is to punish the victim. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And, by far, the worst thing to do is bring it up in a public forum. If such matters are at issue it is the prerogative of the subject of those attacks to decide when and where they are addressed, not for some third party. I would think this would be clear to an ethical journalist, who may have off-wiki knowledge, if not simple common sence for, well... anyone. Speculation without knowledge is even worse and is simple drama mongering and deserving of only contempt. Jbh^Talk 23:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I regret that you believe I am speculating without knowledge, or that I am seeking drama, or that I deserve contempt. You may perhaps be mistaken in some or all of these three opinions. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Then you are making public information about a third party, which they have not chosen to reveal, based on implied off-wiki knowledge. That action is deserving of all three of those opinions plus indictive of an ethical failure and, based on WP:OUTING, blockable. Maybe an admin would be kind enough to do so. PS Indent your posts. I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the threading. Jbh^Talk 23:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have taken care not to reveal any personal information regarding any people who might be involved. Please calm down. Take a deep breath. If you suspend disbelief and conjecture that I might conceivably be a reasonable person, you may reach a different understanding. (Pro tips: "implied" and "implicit" are different things, as are "indicate" and :indict." All knowledge is off-wiki since the poor wiki doesn't know anything. Sorry about the threading; my threading habits go back to the original Wiki -- Ward’s Wiki, the WikiWIkiWeb -- where deep indents were undesirable.MarkBernstein (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Possibly I have misunderstood what you have written - what you seem to be saying is that Gamialiel is "possibly" being subject to some form of extortion by unspecified individuals re his involvement in admining GamerGate. That whatever pressure that is being used is sufficient to require him to publicly remove himself via this sanction. My responce is that if you know this to be true then you should not be bringing it up for privacy and other reasons and if you do not know it to be true you should not be bringing it up for those reasons plus baseless drama mongering. I simply see no good reason for you to be speculating on the motives of a third party and whether they are being subject to extortion and threats of "punishment". Yes, I do know you covered yourself by using hypothetical phrasing "If someone were threatining..." but that is a bare fig leaf. You are either writing about the subject of this sanction while wanting to leave yourself an out or you wanted to make readers think you are writing about the subject of this sanction, while leaving yourself an out. Neither is good. Have I misread you? If so how? Jbh^Talk 00:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: please just stop this. It is not helpful and indeed you may be barking up the wrong tree with your speculation. And this is clearly a violation of the spirit of the ban. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If this "extortion" scenario MarkBernstein alludes to is nothing more than speculation, I would say it's a clear violation not only of the spirit of the ban, but the letter of the ban: "You are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate,..." Marteau (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A point in MarkBernstein's favor: Gamaliel and MarkBernstein are frequent targets of ridicule for their actions on Wikipedia on GG-related public forums off-wiki (Reddit, etc.). That people talk about both of them in derogatory manners is very easy to check and identify (there's several active threads right now). But that said, I have not seen anything in the last several months suggesting any public discussion that suggests they are engaging in harassment or extortion towards Gamaliel (or MarkBernstein) there, and certainly nothing that I can connect via publicly self-identified handles to any WP editors. In other words, from what publicly is there, I don't see anything to support MarkBernstein's assertions, though there could readily be private discussions going on that have led to these; it would be expected that if this is affecting Gamaliel by en.wiki editors, that this be provided by MarkBernstein in private correspondence to the committee to be dealt with, as has happened before in the GG topic area. Otherwise, this goes back to the aspirations towards en.wiki editors that MarkBernstein was topic-banned for ([1]). --MASEM (t) 14:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I have made and will make no comment here at all concerning Gamergate the Dread Pirate Roberts or the Association amicale des amateurs d'andouillette authentique. I will also not comment on my aspirations, present or past. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You do realize you're not even supposed to use the word "Gamergate" outside of the exemptions in BANEX? Capeo (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You are playing semantic games. You sent tweets about this subsection of yours and your extortion scenario ("Barking up the wrong tree"), invoke 'Gamergate' explitictly in the tweet, and then say you are "making no comment here" about Gamergate. Pure gamesmanship. You are clearly talking about Gamergate as indicated by your sending your followers here and saying as much. Your ban prohibits you from talking about Gamergate here, it is not a ban on simply saying the word. Marteau (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not identified or characterized the source of the threats on-wiki. Elsewhere, I believe I am free to write as I please. I write professionally about new media and web science, and the topic discussed here is of considerable interest to scholars in these fields. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As a general comment, it's been clear for a long time that editors working in and around the GG topic area have faced extensive, sustained and entirely asymmetric pressure. This pressure manifests not just as harassment and bullshit online but in a clear message to editors working on the topic that their actions will be monitored and scrutinized by a group of people not exactly known for their precision and charm when they've decided someone is an enemy of the state. It's resulted in literal actual fucking death and rape threats to editors and the constant surveillance and calls to action allows the use of arbcom and AE to punish editors on forums here. It also profoundly chills participation in the topic area in ways we just aren't used to on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Either way, given the principles from prior ARBCOM cases, the remedy is not open speculation about it but if there's evidence of harassment, for the victims to be protected by having the issues brought to Arbcom secretly and off-wiki. As such, while the prior discussion was just pure speculation, this comment thread moving into serious speculation about death threats now is going beyond what is necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has gone quite a way beyond Gamaliel's restriction from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decisions within the Gamergate topic. Can this discussion be closed or moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others? If editors have issues with MarkBernstein's posts, can you move them to his talk page or to the AE board? This is not the proper forum for action to be taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There is already an ongoing discussion at WP:AE, which would seem to be the best place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Without commenting on specific conflicts, JBH is right about a basic principle: if you see something on wiki that impacts another person's privacy, it's better to notify the affected person quietly (i.e. by email) or contact wp:oversight, than to create a Streisand effect by stirring up drama on wiki. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

It should be noted that this applies only based on the block being marked as an Oversight block, not based on the blocking admin's userrights. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I updated the policy page Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Oversight_blocks per the motion by copy pasting (with attribution, of course) the exact language of the motion ; such a note could be made there, or discussed on the corresponding talk page. (Personally I find the language clear enough as is). NE Ent 10:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Nice to see positive movement on this one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC).
  

Original announcement

Thanks to the committee. I can see why the workshop and evidence pages have been courtesy blanked; I think that's a little overdoing it on the main page. At least, shouldn't it be in Category:Wikipedia arbitration cases? BethNaught (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Remedy #4 encourages editors to "make use of the material presented in the Evidence and Analysis of Evidence sections". I assume "Evidence" means Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence and "Analysis of Evidence" is in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop...links would have been useful. But if arbcom instructs us to use the content, User:Mdann52's privacy-blanked both of those pages, citing a non-public request or discussion on clerks-l, interfering with our ability to do so. Can't really have it both ways! If indeed there is acceptance that blanking is okay, we can still get to the content if we want to see it (it's not revdel'ed) but we have to know that we can (and know how to) dig through the page-histories prior to blanking. That makes it even more important to provide links to the old revisions (and sections thereof) that actually had the content. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. While there was a finding of fact that Wikicology was harassed, in the absence of any remedies or specific findings on those grounds I think it's a little bit overkill. At the very least, his account ought to be tagged with ((sockpuppet|Isaacatm|proven)) to enable the appropriate categorization if and when the need arises to act on his sockpuppetrycase in the future. I mean, there was a finding of fact that he's a sock. Like, I get the harassment issue. I get that's why we're honoring his request, so we're not google-bombing his real name (which wouldn't happen given ArbCom pages aren't indexed: see T13261). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• The links to revisions of Wikicology's user page (namely in FoF#3 but possibly in other parts) do not work because "oldid=" doesn't work for deleted revisions (which must be linked to by timestamp). Since the main case is blanked, I supposed this cannot be fixed, but I'm leaving a note here that if the main case page is ever agreed upon to be unblanked, these links should be fixed, otherwise the essence of the FoF becomes unsupported. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @BethNaught, DMacks, and Mendaliv: As far as I'm concerned, when someone gets banned we should do what we can to help them disengage. Taking preventative action against non-compliant crawlers and bottom-feeding mirrors is easy enough. Of course it's perfectly fine to reference the material in the page history and compile the on-wiki stuff (without real names and similar details) - I'd suggest an organization modeled on a CCI, checking for unverifiable as well as copied material in live mainspace edits. As for the sock thing, that's been public knowledge for years and we are pretty much agreed that this is just background information. There's no need to tag and template now.
    @Salvidrim!: Thanks for the pointer. Presumably, if there is a need to restore the case page, those circumstances would also justify restoring the userpage. In any event, it's fairly clear from the page history what the intended reference is. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    • • @Opabinia regalis: Your phrase it's perfectly fine to reference the material in the page history and compile the on-wiki stuff (without real names and similar details) implies some kind of injunction suppressing the name Olatunde Isaac. Could you please clarify. This is already having a chilling effect: "I'm honestly scared that even linking to his earlier ANI would result in a block." quoth Medaliv. BethNaught (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
        • @BethNaught: Injunction? No, not anything so formal... I'm just saying that I hope people will be considerate despite their frustration with having a mess to clean up. How would posting his name on a cleanup subpage help? Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Is this something new that ArbCom is doing? I'm not aware of any serious pattern of practice where this sort of vanishment, or even failing to tag the editor as banned, is routinely granted to editors regardless of whether he or she has been harassed. Just going down the list: Lightbreather, Technical 13, OccultZone, Esoglou, Padresfan94, Wifione, Ryulong, and Carolmooredc were all banned by ArbCom in 2014 or 2015 and every last one of them have a userpage with the ban notice. Only North8000 lacks such a notice. Many of these editors were not sockpuppeteers, many were subjected to harassment. I just find this really confusing, especially given this evidently extraordinary remedy was neither briefed nor discussed during workshop, and forms no part of the official decision. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Additionally, I'll note that the banning policy very clearly states that the normal, albeit not mandatory, position in a ban is for a banned user's user and user talk pages to be tagged. If ArbCom has made a determination that Wikicology's user and user talk pages should not be tagged, then that determination should have been made part of the enforcement provisions of the decision. If this is just one of those optional things, then I would respectfully suggest that this is an issue that should have been briefed and discussed. Tagging banned users as banned is important. Tagging banned users as banned is done to inform community members—especially inexperienced ones—who discover a banned user's pre-ban edits of the ban, so they are alerted that attempting to engage the user in discussion will fail. It is especially concerning because of the documented quality of Wikicology's edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Tend to agree here that arbitrators should be making it clear on-wiki that this is part of a arbitration requirement to keep these pages blanked and untagged; my good faith assumption is that there is a secret reason as to why it needs to happen that can't be discussed on-wiki, but the results of that decision should be able to be stated in other then deletion logs and edit summaries. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
        • And even if there are grounds to keep the page untagged, why was it re-deleted when the only contributions in the page history were the addition of and removal of the tags? If this is an anti-harassment provision, what anti-harassment value is there in removing the history of adding a tag to a blank page? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Agree with the above. It is normal to tag, and often it is non-admin that do the tagging. If it is to be excluded from tagging, it should be in the decision, and we can even put a hidden comment in the user and talk page to that effect with the link. Otherwise, we admin can't enforce if someone does tag, for lack of standing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
        • @Mendaliv: First off, thanks for taking an interest in this case; your workshop proposals were very helpful :) On this particular question, it is not an "extraordinary remedy" to put the text of the case behind, at most, two additional clicks. The reason for the ban is, of course, documented in the block log - which is a much better repository of such information than userpage templates, since it's so rarely modified - plus there's a notice on the talk page. These banned-editor tags are a recurring source of dispute and frustration, and tend to encourage people who need to disengage from Wikipedia altogether to instead monitor what's going on with their userpages. @Xaosflux: Sorry, you're right, it would've been better if an arb or clerk had done the deletion in the first place, but CSD admins are fast :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
          • That Arb notice has a date on it. Does the user have archiving? I didn't check. That is one of the reasons tags are helpful. It isn't about shaming, it just information. Had they used their real name here at Wikipedia (a foolish thing to do, no?) then I'm always for avoiding tags for BLP like reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
            • Thanks, OR, it's good to feel appreciated. :) I'm glad to have some explanation at least. I can't say I agree but I suppose this is hardly the place to dispute the applicability of the banning policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
              • FWIW, in reference to your prior examples, I would have no problem with removing tags or blanking case pages at the request of an editor who was the primary focus of a case, especially if their real identity were widely known. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
                • Same here. If the person is known, then we sacrifice the limited usefulness of the tag in favor of their privacy. That said, using one for someone that isn't known in the real world is not an evil thing and we need to either change policy, or stop demonizing people who tag. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• The case is over. Wikicology is banned. We believe we made the right decision in banning Wikicology, but that is hardly a cause for us to celebrate, and to see comments and edits that come pretty close to gravedancing is distasteful. In addition, those of you with magic admin glasses can tell that there's significant harassment going on; in other words, Wikicology is hardly having a picnic.

  Sticking the "banned" banner on his user page is of no use to anyone. Dennis, it's not "just" information and you know it. Anyone who has a need to know who the user is who made this or that edit can click on "contributions" where it says, in plain English, "Miniapolis (talk | contribs | block) blocked Wikicology (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Arbitration enforcement: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology)". Now, let's please stop gravedancing and get on with it. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  • What is it with this fetish for blackening user pages with the "banned" template, anyway? It seems sadistic. Good faith editors, even when rightly banned, shouldn't be treated that way. Everyking (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
    • You're welcome to take ((banned)) to TfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Several years ago, the template was modified to look like this, to reduce the "this user is evil" impression. It was eventually reverted almost a year later back to how it looks now. Perhaps a discussion on how we could modify the template is in order? Mz7 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
        • That would be a good idea. Personally, I wouldn't miss it much if it went the way of Banrevert and BannedMeansBanned. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I take offence to being accused of gravedancing for asking for a category to be added, such that the case does not drop out of the arbitration archives (I see it has now been added, thank you). BethNaught (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly in love with the comment by Drmies "Sticking the "banned" banner on his user page is of no use to anyone. Dennis, it's not "just" information and you know it. " as well. It implies I have some agenda or nefarious motives. I am the most uninvolved man in the room re: this case, my observation was about procedure, not the individual. I will chalk it up to poor choice of words, but did feel it was worth mentioning since it had an insulting tone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Dennis, I am not implying that at all--I'm just saying you know better than that, because I think you do and you're playing devil's advocate. You're a good guy and you're involved, I have no doubt about that. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Shame that the blunt instrument of "banning" was used when there were perfectly good alternatives. Wikicology will learn very little about en:WP over the coming year. I hope that he will work on the Yoruba and Igbo wikis. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC).
  
• Banned template are nothing but a stupid scarlet letter -- anyone that's wiki savvy knows to grok what an editor is about, you use "User contributions," which would, of course, so the block of a sock. The self righteous altering of other's user pages are just stocks. NE Ent 21:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Other the other handle, blanking of case pages is hardly a courtesy for future Wikipedians. Consider, for example, Acknowlege of imperfection -- it says Neither editors nor edits are required to be perfect. That's could be a useful tidbit in the future on ANI, where WP:NOTPERFECT is the standard for admins and WP:CIR for hapless newbies who take a wrong turn and end up there. But I'm not going to find that in the future via wiki-search because the page has been blanked. NE Ent 21:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You know, I didn't give much thought to that one, because the principles in this case are not terribly innovative. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Speaking here as a case participant rather than a clerk, I don't have a problem with blanking rather than tagging at the present time. That said, if Wikicology starts socking or otherwise violating the terms of his ban, then I would strongly suggest tagging as normal. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC).

• I don't see any reason to get worked up about the blanking, as long as the pages are still reachable through the history tab. WP isn't supposed to be a bureaucracy and if a gesture like that helps someone depart with dignity, doing it seems fine to me. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Care

• Did anyone known to and trusted by the community, or by ArbCom, attempt to make personal contact with Wikicology?
• Did anyone known to and trusted by the community, or by ArbCom, ascertain in which language Wikicology is most comfortable?
• Did the committee ask Wikicology in private whether and how his personal circumstances affected his editing?

Aspects of this difficult case suggest a variety of interpretations, many of which have been proposed in the case pages, not always in the kindest or most dignified of terms. The committee even now seems uncertain (or perhaps divided) in their interpretation of what Wikicology meant to do. I wonder whether a chat over lunch might have yielded insight where thousands of volunteer hours expended in formal hearings and draconian pronouncements failed. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The idea that the ArbCom should have had a "chat over lunch" with the subject is amusing if only because it makes so little sense when the various arbitrators and the subject of the arbitration were and are located in at least three continents. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Thanks for your comments, but you know perfectly well that we are not going to discuss private correspondence with third parties, or in public. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking what was said. I’m asking, “did you try?” MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thousands of volunteer-hours? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that hundreds of volunteers read these pages. That’s hundred hours, easy. The editors who actually participate, in my experience, are likely to spend tens of hours: that’s hundreds, too. From ArbCom campaign discussion, even an easy case consumes tens of hours from each of 10 or 15 arbs. Wikicology has almost 10,000 edits; they're not fluent in English but let that pass and say 10 min/edit; that’s 1666 hours of volunteer work over 2 years. All those AN/Is and RFCs that got us here; again, tens and hundreds of volunteer hours, at minimum. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your rhetorical questions are as unanswerable as your private questions. My guess is that you are insinuating that we (either the community or ArbCom) stood by and watched as someone got crushed, Penal Colony-style, in some bureaucratic machine. We are well aware that these cases are about human beings (you can quote me on that), and I think that the criticism we have gotten from others confirms that they think we were too kind or generous. I also think that maybe you should be more active in actual Wikipedia editing so you can see these editors at work, and maybe help them out early in their career, rather than at the end. I'd love to see you at work in WP:AFC or WP:DR; hanging out at ArbCom never made anyone a better person. You can quote me on that too. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

According to Drmies, "hanging out at ArbCom never made anyone a better person". I have been "hanging out" at ArbCom through this case to provide evidence about editing quality that I suspected would not be evident to any Arbitrator without a strong background in chemistry. I have wondered before how ArbCom views the evidence and workshop contributions of non-parties and why there is so little feedback on what is useful and what is unhelpful. Is it an effort to help us become "better" people by staying away from ArbCom? As I said on the PD talk page, I was disappointed to see that Wikicology had been harassed and I was sad that no lesser sanction than a ban seemed practical (I couldn't see one) so I don't believe that I have engaged in grave dancing. I am feeling disrespected / unappreciated, though. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• EdChem, it's all good. Your efforts are appreciated, and I didn't see any gravedancing from you. We can't always comment on the evidence we receive, and MarkBernstein probably knows this very well, but a little birdie told me that in the Wikology case your sciency contributions were greatly appreciated. As for a better person--look at me and see what all this power has done to me. I can't even give you a proper answer to the question. I will say this: you may feel disrespected, but have you seen what we get to digest, on-wiki and off-wiki, after every decision or non-decision? None of that will make us feel good about ourselves, or make us a better person. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Well, much thanks to the committee, and sorry to Wikicology, I think you could have 'straightened up, and flew right,' but who knows. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• EdChem I appreciated it. Being that my chem background is relatively strong but ancient and virtually all IUPAC or common name (or explicitly written), seeing your analyses was like relearning. It's not anyday where I learn (or relearn) something in ArbCom space :) --DHeyward (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• @EdChem: Your evidence was quite useful, thank you for presenting it so cogently. If you want to discuss the question of feedback or what makes useful evidence or similar, maybe start a new thread on that? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's clear from the case pages that EdChem's evidence was very helpful, yes. There were a number of troubling aspects to this case, but one positive note was the mostly helpful contributions by regular editors and admins (as opposed to the anonymous harassment). For the most part, evidence and contributions to the workshop were neutrally phrased and respectful, recognizing that there was a human being under investigation. I have no hesitation at all thanking EdChem for their help and particularly their diplomatic phrasing, and apologize if my off-the-cuff remark caused them unease. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• On 13 May, decision 4 was saying "community is encouraged... to organize a systematic clean-up effort for Wikicology's past problematic contributions". But the next day, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology has been courtesy blanked, and the second day, we are teached that "hanging out at ArbCom never made anyone a better person". It seems prudent to ask if redirecting most of the 50 Ooni articles, as void and poorly sourced, will be described as grave dancing, or as obvious from the case ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • That was a response to one particular editor, albeit maybe worded too widely. Doug Weller talk 15:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pldx1: Of course not, cleanup and editing and review is more than welcome. And, what Doug said :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Arbcom page volunteers may want to use the very pointy userbox User:NE_Ent/Beyond_Redemption. Or not. I won't, cause I don't use userboxes because on-wiki, everything you say will be used against you, sooner or later. More to point, I'm not trying to improve myself, I'm trying to improve Wikipedia by offering suggestions and advice -- hopefully supported by logic, reason, common sense and diffs -- to the committee, and I've always assumed that most other participants not directly in the events under scrutiny are trying to do the same thing. NE Ent 10:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

There is a trivial typo that you should probably fix: a missing closed-parenthesis at the end of the Expectations section. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Done NE Ent 22:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• 1.Administrators are not permitted to remove and 2.Administrators must not remove Is there some difference in meaning between the two phrases? Was it intentional that they don't both have "are not permitted" or "must not"? Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think there's any significance to this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  Good. Didn't look like it, but normally one would use the same wording for both if the meaning's supposed to be the same, so I figured I might as well check. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Once again ArbCom has slipped into making policy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC).
  

  I don't think it is that bad on this one - the must not's are not "in general" but as related to enforcement actions. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  I think not; I think wording is convoluted specifically because they're trying not to make policy -- it's only limiting the protection in the context of arbitration enforcement / DS. There's nothing in the motion that would preclude the community from changing wp:protect to allow other uses of extended grand poobah editor -- whatever it's called. NE Ent 03:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, the point was to provide guidance on use in "in arbcom's name", so to speak. The community can develop general policy on this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  After all, this new protection level was invented as a method of enforcing an Arbcom decision. You're prohibited from doing such-and-such while enforcing an Arbcom action, not overall. In other words, they're giving an official interpretation of their previous statement. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  The text of the motion ought to specify this; this limited scope is really not clear from the motion. isaacl (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  We would rightly make fun of the committee if they passed a motion The sun will rise tomorrow. Making a statement that this is not making policy could be misconstrued as the committee thinking it has the right to decide to not make policy, which isn't correct, of course. I agree the motion, as passed, requires careful parsing to figure out what it's saying, and what it's not, but that's kind of always the way with these things. NE Ent 12:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, I believe it would be helpful to specify that the motion applies solely to remedies for arbitration cases. I do not believe it would be a subject of humour. isaacl (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  The community page Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Extended_confirmed_protection makes that pretty clear. NE Ent 02:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  It would be nice if the motion had clearly delineated the scope, so that an initial edit specifying the opposite intent wouldn't have been made, and so that someone trying to trace the origin of this edit wouldn't have to hunt through this talk page. I trust the arbitration committee may consider this for future written decisions. isaacl (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  In practice, how could an administrator affect the group if it's automatically conferred on edit? Wouldn't removal from the group be undone on the next edit? I understand the intent of the restrictions but they seem moot if it is automatically conferred. Am I missing something? Also, I expect some IPs may request "range conferred" group access. Something to think about. --DHeyward (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  The automatic update only happens once per account. T. Canens (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

  • There are three "expectations" sections two that look like policy making, and one that I don't understand, but looks like policy making under any interpretation I could construe:

Extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption.

This is a blanket control of the use of ECP by fiat. Of course it's likely that the community might pass the same as policy, but, to date it has not. The second clause, of course, makes ArbCom exempt from the policy it has just created - giving the impression of "four legs good, two legs better/"

• Next:

Administrators are not permitted to remove the extended confirmed user group as a discretionary sanction.

There is no definition of what is meant here by "discretionary sanction". If it means discretionary sanction imposed by ArbCom there is perhaps an argument to be made that this is not a policy imposition. However it is. ArbCom are extending their bailiwick by explicitly prohibiting an administrative action in certain cases, regardless of justification. Given the number of articles that have been under discretionary sanctions which would have been candidates for ECP, this is a potentially massive curtailment of administrators freedom to act in the best interests of the project.

• The third expectation seems to overlap the second. It is far from clear how an administrator is expected to know every ArbCom ruling to ensure that removal of ECP will not "bypass" it (whatever that means). This would have a chilling effect on removal of the ECP group.

Moreover it is not clear what force these "Expectations" are intended have.

500/30 was a bad idea, deliberately designed to disenfranchise editors, as an easy alternative to acculturation, and this instruction creep is making it worse.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC).

The committee is simply listing the current uses of 500/30 in areas under its purview, and then expectations for use in that context; no policies were made. NE Ent 12:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The ECP of Real Madrid C. F. and Carmen García Rosado‎ would put those admins (User:Marine 69-71 and User:MilborneOne) in conflict with ArbCom's "expectations" if they were implemented today.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC).

Speaking personally, I don't particularly care what people do with this new bauble as long as they don't do it in the committee's name --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have asked the respective admins to change the protection levels. BethNaught (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I kind of appreciate that this was laid out in detail as opposed to the sometimes vague statements that appear on WP:AN. Vague statements that usually result in extended discussion on their vagueness. Blackmane (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Can you please, please, please clarify in the motion that the expectations apply to Discretionary Sanctions only? You've caused serious confusion, see eg WP:AN#Extended confirmed protection. BethNaught (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @BethNaught: I'm wondering if a better question would be "how do we get people to read motions before they're enacted and comment if they find anything confusing?" ;) This apparent confusion is about a subject that's been under discussion in public for a month and a half. Would something like "Expectations for use in AE/DS" clarify things? Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    • You could offer Get Out of Jail Free cards which a wiki-player could use to get out of a block. NE Ent 02:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
      • @BethNaught: Tweaked for clarity's sake. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
      • @NE Ent: Let's take this one step further. One card gets you out of a block. Save up ten and you get to order a block on the editor of your choice. No immunity, arbs included. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Thanks for your service. I hope that circumstances align so that you may return to the project in due time. Nakon 03:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  As an administrative note, does Gamaliel retain their checkuser/oversight user rights with this announcement? Nakon 03:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  There are, I think, two precedents that resigning as an arb does not by default entail losing the CU and OS flags. (And plenty that arbs who rotate off have the option to keep them). As far as I am aware, Gamaliel has said nothing about those flags in either direction. This announcement only changes the status of his seat on the committee, not any user right flags. Courcelles (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification. Nakon 04:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  If he is unable to edit though, should he retain the tools? Yunshui had CU/OS removed for a similar reason: [2] Also, considering the possible sanctions in the open case (including an interaction ban), I wonder if it is appropriate that someone who is under sanctions should remain a functionary. --Rschen7754 21:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  @Nakon: the userrights were removed at 02:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC???). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for all your work on the committee Gamaliel. I too hope that you will eventually be able to return to Wikipedia. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gamaliel! Given a current but apparently temporary, and apparently sudden and unannounced, inability to edit, but a history of active engagement, would it be useful to put a ((busy)) or similar on his userpage? DMacks (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly sudden, I posted about it on the 7th.[3] - remember, we had to post his evidence for him? He did ask for his user page to be blanked, so I'm not sure about a busy notice on it. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Courcelles: @Doug Weller: What will happen to his ArbCom spot? Will there be an election for a replacement, or will there be an interim Arbitrator, elected by ArbCom? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If ArbCom follows past precedent, the seat will remain vacant until the annual election in December. The last time a replacement was appointed, as opposed to elected, to fill a mid-term vacancy was in 2007. Altamel (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus resigned last year and we didn't have an election. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I retired at election time, it was Yunshui who left mid-year. This point brought to you in the spirit of pedantry. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops, yes. You announced it earlier though, right? And there was no suggestion of replacing Yunshui. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, announced in September I think. Entirely agree that there should not be a fresh election - am on a mobile so can't easily check but have a feeling there's actually a policy somewhere to this effect? The committee should just carry the vacancy to the next poll, where it would be filled in the usual way. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration policy states: In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators. I don't think we're at that point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's mass-resignation territory. If enough Arbs resigned so that the remainder could not fill a quorum of a full committee, I think it'd be something to consider. But as you say, not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

But if they weren't quorate would they be able to call elections? DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Quorum for conducting business is a majority of active members, so yeah they could call elections. Honestly, if it got down to 7 members and 4 voted to hold an interim election, I think that'd be about the only decision they could make that wouldn't be questioned by the community. We also have Jimbo as a safety valve - he could call an election under his own authority. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• I, too, would like to offer my good wishes to Gamaliel. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• I hope the harassment ends and Gamaliel can return to editing on Wikipedia. He has over ten years of service and it's infuriating that some troll can bring an end to his contributions to the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• I echo the good wishes too. As someone whose hands get covered with typesetter's ink on a quarterly basis, I can well imagine that your absence at The Signpost is felt each week. ArbCom is keeping mum about the underlying reason so I don't know where this information originates, but several people have spoken of off-Wiki harassment as a contributing factor and if that's accurate then you have my deep sympathy. Nobody deserves that, not even frank vandals. Hang in there. -Thibbs (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• I know people who've been through things like it looks like you're going through. Hopefully with time, the harassment will be dealt with, and you'll be able to come back. Dittoing what Liz says as well. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

On a purely procedural note, why does Gamaliel's account (I choose my words carefully) still have the sysop flag? Surely, if he has departed the project, that's a security risk, and it should be removed until such time as he returns? (The nearest analogy, albeit an unfortunate one, is that we remove rights from the accounts of deceased editors, for similar security concerns). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Inactive admins only have the flag removed after 12 months of inactivity. Mike V • Talk 14:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Is there a reason the April Fools remedy wasn't enacted? ~ Rob^Talk 03:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Nope, my apologies, now fixed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Thought so, cheers! ~ Rob^Talk 04:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Seconding the concern; where's it fixed? The "original announcement" link doesn't include it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Done in announcement now. (I had originally fixed it at the main case page.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding the April Fools' Day remedy, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 20#Towards another April Fools' RfC over how the new RfC should be structured, if we are to have it. Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
• I still find the "reminder" to Arkon odd as it wasn't supported in the FoF. Since he accepted responsibility and admitted his faults, which played a very tiny role in all this, the "reminder" seems gratuitous. If you want to encourage editors to admit relatively minor errors on their part, sanctioning them after they have done so is not how you do it. In fact, it encourages editors to instead dig in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Whilst I completely agree with the last couple of sentences in the above comment by Dennis Brown generally, in contrast, I would reiterate that I don't consider the reminder as "gratuitous" for the reasons GoldenRing and I already said at the proposed decision talk page. To summarise, given the remedies which did pass, and having reviewed the extent and manner of his "admission" during the case, I thought a formal reminder was necessary and appropriate (irrespective of whether the wording could be improved to better reflect his actions and its effect in perpetuating all of this). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I see this as one of quite a few aspects of this case that could have been handled a lot better. I think a remedy against Arkon was warranted and the reminder is at about the right level. I think we've seen many others sitebanned here for similar behaviour, but spread over a much longer period and without the somewhat extenuating circumstances present here; I certainly wouldn't support any blocks or bans given the short duration covered by the evidence. But there are problems. We now have a remedy reminding Arkon that seems to me to contradict policy and it seems ripe for appeal on those grounds. My guess is that the drafters had a feeling something was warranted (I agree) and chose to focus on the 'edit warring' as that was the simplest to evidence. When it was pointed out that the edit warring was expressly permitted by policy, no-one could be bothered to go and redraft something that actually addressed the problems and so we ended up with the mess we see. Far be it from me to grumble that I did the work for the committee and they ignored it. Admittedly it was rather late in the day. It's only a guess as to what happened, but it seems the most natural, human explanation to me. GoldenRing (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What does "admonished" mean in this case to the editors concerned? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, it means "last chance" for an admin and the next serious breach they will be desysopped. JzG has been admonished before, and almost admonished a 3rd time (he would have been, but he wasn't listed as a party, so they felt the couldn't in that case). In this case, they limited the scope so narrowly that they painted themselves into a corner, thus couldn't consider a desysop for him, a point that some protested over. In practice, it is hard to say what admonishment really means for this case, at least from my perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Lugnuts: Well, not quite. JzG was indeed a party to this case. A couple of arbs did raise the question of desysopping him, but it was not proposed for a vote. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I wouldn't take into account an admonishment 8 years ago. That seems unreasonable to me, Dennis. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, on day one of this little shindig, I was on record saying (deleted by clerks) no one needed to be desysopped so this misses my point. The way the case was handled, it was impossible to really consider the full spectrum of solutions as Salvio points out, as you didn't allow evidence before April 1 [4]. The outcome worked out solely because of Gamaliel's action, something I told him he needed to do before this case started. So while there were few major fuck ups during the case, were I an Arb, I would be grateful for the luck that was thrown upon you. As for Gamaliel (whom I hold no animosity for), I hope things are ok, and again, I would say thank you for doing the right thing in both instances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone want to discuss how to set up the RfC recommended in the decision? John Carter (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

We already are, see link above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• JzG has been admonished three times. When is he out?New England Cop (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And two of those were over seven years ago. Seriously, that's just too far back to be used to show any pattern of behavior. Doug Weller talk 08:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • And yet, out of the 10 voting arbs, 4 expressed opinions in favor of a desysop, 3 others mentioned simply that a desysop couldn't be considered procedurally within the scope of the Gamaliel case, one issued a strong admonishment and two others stayed mute on their votes. This almost rises to the level of something I wouldn't be surprised if the committee resolved by motion given history and already-stated Arb opinions (but if Arbs would rather see a full case, then I see nothing stopping them from starting one themselves, since a significant portion of the Committee already thinks a desysop remedy would be warranted). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I count 3 in favor of a desysop. User:Guerillero did say that if he was admonished in GMO he'd support a desysop, but in fact there were only 2 votes to admonish him there - he wasn't admonished in GMO. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I feel that a desyop for JzG would be a bit of an overreaction considering his action: closing an ANI discussion in a facetious manner, that he and many others would find plainly ridiculous. Sometimes there is pressures on ArbCom for for considering remedies beyond admonishment, purely as a response of the disruption a full case brings with it, when none is warranted. I would commend ArbCom for avoiding knee jerk reactions in this case. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
      • This part of the case seems like an odd thing to be focusing on. Anyone who really thinks there is a serious case about JzG's adminship should do the legwork and file a request instead of posting here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
        • • I'm not suggesting a desysop of anyone, but filing now would be foolish and it would be declined, as all the actions that are in question have already been adjudicated. It would look like double jeopardy, and you know it. This is why it is important to do things right the first time, whatever that means. A couple of Arbs said something about a separate case, but for the reasons I just spoke of, there is no way in hell that would happen, as the community would be against it in principle. It just seems disingenuous to talk of it as if it were really an option when we all know it is not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Well if you were not deliberately making that suggestion Dennis, I hope you will reconsider whether you ought to have permitted an arb to initially respond to the query by Lugnuts, particularly given your own admission that you did not understand the practical effect of the remedy in this case (which was the actual query), and given that you unnecessarily shifted the focus to one of three admonished users before it could be answered properly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
              • I'm pretty sure I didn't prevent anyone from speaking. And you misread me, although that seems to be a sport here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

What kind of script? Drama, horror, comedy? I guarantee that learning a programming language is far more beneficial, practical, and useful than serving as an unpaid administrative clerk for a kangaroo court. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

We were considering asking that the script be written in either EMACS Lisp or Smalltalk but that was considered excessive. JavaScript is probably your best bet if you don't want to write a bot, MZMB --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I had thought I'd leave this alone. But if EMACS is the environment you want it in, why not? Count me in. GoldenRing (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Everybody knows the official programming language of the cabal is Scheme ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

At least it isn't tragedy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not brainf**k. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Surely the official language is TrumpScript. Make ArbCom great again! Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that more bot writers watch WP:BOTR than this noticeboard. Legoktm (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Legoktm; I cross-posted to VPT, and we can post this in more places if needed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Could the two be added to the list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Personnel, probably a sub-section labelling their status as script writers? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Salvidrim!: We never discussed that, though that might be a good idea. @ArbCom Clerks: Any thoughts? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @L235: I think they should be added, once the script has been written and is functional. Jim Carter 18:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Thank you. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, Rich, for your patience, and all the best. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

I am not familiar with the circumstances of the original desysop but I find the wording of this motion rather confusing. What does "may be resysopped at his request at any time" actually mean? That he can simply request a resysop at WP:BN? Or that he is now allowed to make a new WP:RfA request? Nsk92 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

He could always have filed a new RFA. This motion removes that requirement, allowing him to go to BN and simply request the tools back when (and if) he desires. Courcelles (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The Motion deals with desysop done under Level I desysop procedure but there is a second question with reference to his Shabazz's Recall standard . The User is his/her Statement in the case states Thank you, ArbCom, for considering re-sysoping me, but I fell short of User:Malik Shabazz/Recall|the standards I set for myself a long time ago and I resigned the bit. Now is the Arbcom telling that the recall pledge here also is not binding after apparently it has been violated or the Crats will look into that question  ? Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: AFAIK, ArbCom is now allowing him to regain the tools through BN, as if he had voluntarily resigned them (as he would've if he was recalled) - so it's as if that was enacted all along. Whether BN and/or the community consider him 'under-a-cloud' from the actions leading up to this is not a matter for ArbCom to deicide.

TL/DR ArbCom have left the crat's to decide whether or not he should be given the bit back. Mdann52 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This. It was the bureaucrats couldn't, now it is the bureaucrats can, not the bureaucrats must. They, of course, maintain their discretion. Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Can we get some insight as to why this took almost a year to adjudicate, especially since the Level I desysop procedure is intended as a temporary measure?- MrX 19:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure. In short, I think we simply dropped the ball. Malik was desysopped and then retired, and then the new ArbCom was elected, and I think the whole thing just fell through the cracks. ArbCom has had a lot of stuff on their plate in the last six months, and since Malik never asked for his bit back (though in the end he did return to editing, fortunately) it remained on the back burner, if it was on any burner at all. Sorry, the metaphors get a bit wonky here. Anyway, one of us brought it up a while ago, so then we had to discuss what exactly happened, what ball was dropped, and what the proper procedure was--a motion was proper, it turned out. We went through a couple of different versions, and here we are.

    We should have done this earlier, and faster, of course, and had Malik expressed a desire to get his bit back we probably would have done this months ago. I, for one, hope that he will ask for it back, since we need admins in contentious areas. And while I'm not a crat and can't speculate, I don't expect this would be denied. Malik said last year he felt he had fallen short of his own standards and I do not want to patronize him by minimizing his own feelings over what happened; in fact, I greatly respect how he took responsibility, but at the same time I'd say we've all fallen short at times, some of us worse than he may have, and this event in his Wikipedia life was neither unprovoked nor irredeemable.

    One more thing, MrX; it's a pretty meager set of excuses that I've presented here for you, and I got another one: these kinds of things are somewhat rare, at least in my experience. Next time we won't dally around this long. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

    • Understood, and thanks for detailed explanation Drmies.- MrX 20:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So, to summarize: Assuming Malik requests resysop at WP:BN, you want the crats to treat such a request as if he had lost the bit through a resignation, and to consider the question of whether that loss occurred "under the cloud" based on the circumstances that led to the desysop a year ago. Correct? Nsk92 (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't really get the point of this. ArbCom could have simply told the crats to restore his tools, no? Now if he does request they be restored at BN it will probably be declined due to being under a cloud (ANI shenanigans ongoing at the time ArbCom stripped them). Bizarre. Jenks24 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• • No. "any ongoing disruption at the time has ceased. Accordingly, we affirm that Malik Shabazz may be resysopped at his request at any time." There's no "if" or caveat there. We would have restored the tools to him if he had asked. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Is "no ongoing disruption" a sufficient criterion for tool restoration? I believe the answer is no; then why is this reason deemed sufficient here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

That you use "ongoing disruption at the time" means I think the crats will call this a cloud. I'm not trying to be troublesome; I just think it would be better to amend it now than have this blow up if Malik ever asks for the tools back down the line. Jenks24 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. There's no secret coded message here; the motion is just the (belated) completion of the Level I procedure and says "may be resysopped at his request at any time" because it means "may be resysopped at his request at any time". (I wrote the text, does that mean I get to say what it means? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

“Impenetrability!”—Odysseus1479 19:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no cloud. When Malik wants the tool back, ArbCom will happily bless that request. Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

With poetic prosody
The Arbitrators speak
Thus for hidden meaning
Wikipedians seek

Their cigar set adrift
Risking Kraken and cloud
Seeking sunlight and clarity
Where Wiki-peace is allowed

Even when benefiting
From Newyorkbradlian concision
Pronouncements could provoke
ANI-ian division

Would upsets be soothed
By iambic pentameter?
Or should ArbCom declare
In trochaic tetrameter?

Could it be we are all
An overly contentious bunch?
Or need we admit
We are all out to lunch?

-- EdChem (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I can cut through this (and I trust one or more arbitrators will advise if I am mistaken, and my apologies if I am). A Level I desysop is temporary by nature. Within some period of time after it is implemented, it is superseded by a permanent action, whether that is a resysopping (when the issue that triggered the action is resolved), by a permanent deysopping (by a further motion or after an arbitration case), or by the admin's resignation. Here, none of those follow-up actions took place primarily because Malik Shabazz said he was retiring and stopped editing. His resumption of editing put the matter back on the agenda. (I use the term "agenda" informally here.)

In this case, the Committee seems to have decided (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that there is going to be no further adverse action by motion, and no case, and Malik did not resign as an admin (the Committee is apparently not treating his comment as a formal resignation). Therefore, Malik's status would ordinarily be restored to as if the desysopping had never happened, and an arbitrator could have gone to BN and ask for a 'crat to flip the bit back.

(With respect to whether any resignation was "under controversial circumstances" ("under a cloud"), the general rule is that usually the bureaucrats decide that issue, but when the resignation is in the midst of an arbitration request or case, the arbitrators have the right to opine on the cloudiness (the Philwelch rule). This is not a power the Committee has used often, but maybe when I wrote that paragraph on the workshop in Philwelch nine years ago, I had a situation like this one in mind.)

However, because of things Malik has said and because of his time away, the arbitrators aren't sure whether Malik wants to be an administrator again. It would be inappropriate and maybe presumptuous to re-confer adminship on someone who might not want it or not be sure whether he wants it. So what I understand the arbs to be saying is that the ball is in his court, and it's up to him whether and when to ask.... Um, have I got that right?

(Y'know, if we're going to review old desysops, there are one or two others I'd like to talk to you folks about ... but technically I don't think they were Level One so the precedent here wouldn't apply there. Um, not like this is a complicated bureaucracy or anything....) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

↑ That. If at some point he wants the bit back, great. If not, at least it's public knowledge that the matter has been reviewed and not just left unresolved. If we're going to have this kind of temporary emergency measure, then we need to be sure people affected by it are treated fairly. I've got one or two others in mind too, but of course those TPS reports have different colors on the covers, so... Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: ,Did the Arb Com look into the issue of his/her logged out edits ?Are You saying he/she is not under a cloud even after these edits? Sockpuppet investigations/Malik Shabazz/Archive where the SPI clerk states he/She used IP's to edit war([5][6][7]) and for Personal Attacks. Note these edits are a month after the Level 1 desysop.@Newyorkbrad: are you saying crats cannot be involved even in issues unrelated to the Level 1 desysop.. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: I was just summarizing my understanding of what the Committee was saying. Any further clarification needs to come from the current arbs as it is their motion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry @Newyorkbrad: I missed it .My apologies.Anyway posted to Opabinia regalis .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Lets not worry about March where he threatened to go to the press in order to chill discussion and intimidate other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies and Opabinia regalis: The official announcement and explanations on the talkpage are weirdly confusing. The official announcement states that the reason is "no ongoing disruption", which is risible. Few, if any, desysops will survive if the criterion is that there is "no ongoing disruption". The statement by Drmies on the talkpage suggests that ArbCom took into account the circumstances of the desysop and considered - on the basis of what exactly isn't clear - that the original desysop could be vacated and a new RfA isn't needed. Just say precisely why you took this decision and what things you considered while making it, in your statement. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I am confused at all of this professed confusion. The Level I process is for cases in which there is some kind of ongoing disruptive event that urgently needs to be stopped. There isn't one anymore (if there ever was). If you're comparing "desysoppings in general", you're comparing the wrong thing; this was specifically a WP:LEVEL1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Indeed, the desysop was correct, but not the restoration. According to the WP:LEVEL1, after a desysop, there needs to be a motion either making the desysop permanent, or rescinding it. I quote: advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. Presumably, during ArbCom's discussions, you considered the incident, the severity, the provocations, the likelihood it may be repeated and so on. This would have taken place a year ago in the WP:ARBPIA3 case if Malik hadn't retired. Now that he has returned (I am very glad that he has returned), did any such discussion take place? If so, there needs to be some statement as to what happened and a reason given. One can't simply say: "oh, it was a temporary desysop, there's no ongoing disruption, right-o, let's rescind it. Nothing to see here, move along." Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. We discussed. Nothing to see here: move along. Sorry, but I really have no idea what we're doing here. Your "what" ("statement as to what happened") is very unclear: are you unclear about what happened with Malik last year, or about what happened in our Top Secret Proceedings? Both are easy, though: Malik had a rough time, momentarily, and then we talked about it and saw that we had to reinstate the bit given that the issue was satisfactorily resolved, i.e., that we (finally) talked about it and that it was obvious that the, eh, disturbance was temporary. Nothing wrong with this restoration.

Again, I don't really understand what we're doing here, what people are looking for. The whole thing was quite simple, but too many people seem dead-set on putting salt on every little-bitty snail. There is no snail. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What Drmies said. Kinsgindian, you said it yourself; the issues are satisfactorily resolved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I know this isn't an ideal place to discuss this issue, but I wasn't sure how else to make a public request of Arbcom; pretty much everything for contacting the committee is either for reporting private stuff (e.g. Special:Emailuser/Arbitration_Committee) or for filing cases.

I've read through the Level II desysop procedures at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, but I'm not clear what's intended, as "the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions" doesn't sound that different from "an account appears to be obviously compromised, or is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion". Level I is obvious, e.g. the desysops for RickK, Zoe, and Robdurbar. Could someone write a few sentences (either in the text or as a footnote) portraying an imaginary situation that warrants a Level II desysop? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: This is the most recent example.

These procedures were written before local bureaucrats could desysop and have been due for an update for a while now; it's been on the to-do list at least since I started. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It was on the to-do list when I was on the Committee. I think someone (Roger?) had outlined on the arbwiki some basic thoughts about it, but it never got further than that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: Roger? Doug Weller talk 11:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Short one-word summary for Nyttend: Level I = compromised; Level II = Rogue. Hypothetical level II - an admin blocks everyone who critized one of their action on AN/I. It's that kind of stuff. The line between "level II desysop" and "full case hearing" can be somewhat blurry and some argue that actions such as Yngvadnottir's (used above as an example) should have gone to a case and not a Level II, so there are clearly different opinions on how to apply the desysopping procedures in practice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would offer a bit of a different explanation. Level I is a more of an emergency case whereas Level II is where there would be blatant misconduct but it does not constitute an emergency. (A more careful perusal of the archives would probably give an even more satisfactory answer.) The point I'm going for here, however, is that if an admin has gone rogue and is causing damage, they would be desysoped first and whatever paperwork is needed would come second. Speaking with my bureaucrat hat on, here are some examples of situation where I would desysop first and then deal with procedure second... In the Robdurbar case, we had an admin delete the Main Page and block a bunch of other admins. In the RickK/Zoe case, we have a WP:AN post to the tune of "this admin account is compromised, please fix." (About a month before the Robdurbar rampage we had four (!) admin accounts compromised but the responsible party did not do us any favours by going on a vandalism spree instead of alerting a steward.) A final example comes from a different WMF project. In that case we had an admin actively wheel warring, and blocked the other party. Having blocked him and realized that he would probably unblock himself when he figured out how to do, I, along with another bureaucrat on that project, kindly asked a steward to flip the bit, which thankfully he did. To bring everything back to the original point, if an admin account is out of control and causing damage, or if it is unambiguously compromised (e.g. RickK/Zoe), then a more logical way of doing things is having someone with the technical ability to desysop to do it. --Maxim_(talk) 21:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, that's why the procedures are outdated - in an actual emergency, crats (or stewards in a pinch) can take of the issue, as in this case of compromised accounts from last year. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If an account needs de-sysopping, or merely appears to need de-sysopping to prevent damage to the project, then it needs to be done. I'm not keen on the exact wording "the paperwork can be done afterwards" because it may be that we decide the de-sysop was wrong, or revert it for other reasons (account control regained for example). In this case the de-sysop was fairly harmless (or indeed beneficial in the second case) but we are not simply catching up the paperwork, we are performing careful deliberation after the fact.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough, Opabinia regalis, Maxim, Salvidrim, Nyttend, and Roger Davis: I think there is widespread agreement (certainly there was on the Committee last year) that the level 1/level 2 desysop procedures need rethinking and updating. Before we get to the point of deciding the procedures of how such desysoppings should be done, I think we should first discuss in what circumstances it may be needed to be done. Accordingly I have started User:Thryduulf/Desysoppings by arbcom setting out my thoughts as a starting point for that discussion. Please invite other people who are interested in this to the discussion. If Arbcom wants to make this an official discussion please feel free to move it out of my userspace and update the intro. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)resigning to fix ping Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Heads up, I've pinged up clerks-l with this. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I also emailed the committee. It really needs comments (from arbs and others) if anything is to happen. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I've been working on a version on ArbWiki for a few days. Main difference is that crats are only able to remove under one of the following circumstances (a) an account appears to be obviously compromised, (b) is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion, or (c) multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring and blocks have not worked then it goes to the Committee for confirmation and authorisation of return of the permission (once/if issue is resolved). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Have the 'crats ever wrongly performed an emergency de-sysop? Have they failed to perform an emergency de-sysop that they should have?

Unless the answer to either of these is yes, I would not worry unduly about the exact wording.

Both Thryduulf and Callencc's comments make sense.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC).

Well, technically, the answer to the first one is yes. But in practice it was the right call and one of the reasons we're changing the procedure to officially allow them to do it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: that seems to cover 1, 4 and 5 on my list. My philosophy is to have something available for the conceivable circumstances so if they do happen there is minimal drama. To that end 2 is included because it allows for situations such as when you couldn't contact Chase me Ladies after the mailing list archive leaks - hopefully rare but needed imho. For 3 I'm thinking mainly of mental health issues similar to the one we dealt with on the Committee last year (not giving names for obvious reasons), hopefully exceedingly rarely needed but a very useful thing to have for when it is needed. 6 is the equivalent of the current level II, as it allows for ArbCom to issue what is effectively a "please explain" backed up by a desysop if there is no explanation or the explanation isn't good enough, without requiring a full case before the desysop (although almost always there will need to be one after). If you are thinking of splitting this into a completely separate procedure that's fine but I still think there is need to have it. available somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Also my 4 is worded so it can be used preventively if it is not completely clear if the actions are deliberately planned or not, with the option to restore without penalty if sober investigation determines this was incorrect. A lawyery reading of your (b) would require certainty of intent before action. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

The reminder seems to be to be relevant to the discussion that is currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Need for a better mechanism for private reporting (as well as at other discussions at that talk page). I understand the announcement as pertaining directly to potential blocks. But I have a specific question that does not necessarily involve blocks. Are these mailing lists now agreeing to accept emails pertaining to COI and undisclosed paid editing, in which the editor sending the email provides private information that may be evidence for an investigation at WP:COIN, and requesting that an Arb or Functionary indicate at the COIN discussion that the evidence does (or does not) support the case that a user has a COI? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Actually this was prompted by something unrelated to that discussion, it just seemed better suited to a general reminder about a relatively little-used bit of policy than to additional comments about that specific matter. Not intended as an invitation for COI-related material; there's been no change on that issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Opabinia. I just wanted to be clear on where things currently stand, and that clears it up for me. Purely as an fyi, I will likely start working on a COI-related proposal in the near future. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond on that on your talk page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Why was I under the impression that we can block users based on private evidence and make it appealable to ArbCom as long as we give ArbCom the evidence? BethNaught (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that was an earlier practice for certain blocks that involve private information.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@BethNaught and Jo-Jo Eumerus: You're probably referring to the last paragraph of WP:OUTING. Yes, this would be a good opportunity to get the wording of the various related policies a little clearer :) GorillaWarfare noticed a wording issue a couple of weeks ago also. If you come into private evidence and it's urgent, yes, block first and then refer the matter to functionaries or arbs. But don't skip the second step :) And if you come across a situation where private information is relevant, just refer people to functionaries/arbs rather than soliciting the information and making a judgment about it yourself. The key issue, I think, is finding the balance between minimizing exposure of private information and permitting review of decisions based on it, and that balance has been maintained by having making sure these things are handled by the group of people who've signed NDAs and who have the infrastructure to review the information privately. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

I have raised this issue on another arbitration case without anything changing, so forgive me if I sound frustrated.

Michael Hardy has was asked by by an arbitration clerk to trim his statement to the 500-word limit.[11]

Instead, he added to the statement.[12][13][14][15]

His word count is now at 2399 words, 4.8 times the 500-word limit. This is unfair to those of us who obey the rules. He gets as many words as he wants to call me a bully, but I have to trim down my response to stay under 500 words. Do you really want to punish those who follow the rules and reward those who ignore them?

In addition to the unfairness, there is a good reason for the 500-word limit. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case should be for requesting that the committee open an arbitration case and commenting on whether you should accept it. By allowing one person so many extra words, you have opened up the door to trying the case on the request page. In a previous case where this happened, you actually copied the off-topic request page posts to the evidence page, and announced that they don't count against the word limits on that page -- again putting anyone foolish enough to follow the rules and refrain from trying the case on the request page at a significant disadvantage.

So could we please either enforce the rules or make an announcement that there are no word limits?

Again, please pardon me if my annoyance is showing through. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I have sought clarification on this from the Committee and am awaiting a response. I will respond here as soon as I have a response that precludes action or action would be noticed on the requests page. Either way I will get back to you as soon as possible. Amortias (T)(C) 18:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I see that the word limit rules are now being enforced, so this can be closed as resolved. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The annual Request For Comment to set rules for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election is now open. As in recent years, the rules from 2015 will remain in place unless changed by consensus during this RFC. The RFC is scheduled to last approximately 30 days, and should end after September 30. For anyone interested in participating, the RFC can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016. Thanks in advance for your participation. Monty₈₄₅ 01:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Was this voted on by the committee, or decided on by a smaller number of arbitrators? From reading the original discussion, multiple people were in favor of restricting unblock appeal channels for six months. Is it the committee's position that the community is not allowed to impose such a restriction? kcowolf (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I certainly can't speak for Arb since I'm just an admin, but it would seem that taking away talk page access is out of process when it hasn't been abused and the editor isn't banned. Our blocking policy says "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page.". Not just abuse, but continued abuse. Short of a banned user or really extraordinary circumstances, (policy uses the word "should"), then the talk page should stay open unless abused. At least that is my read of policy, your mileage may vary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kcowolf: Yes, we voted on the mailing list.

I don't want to speak for everyone else, but as the author of the text - yes, outside of rare circumstances where there is evidence of likely abuse, I would consider using an ANI thread to prohibit the use of normal appeals channels to be inappropriate. The limitations of ANI are well known - it tends to be vulnerable to groupthink, the participants are self-selected, it's not always possible for everyone to understand the full backstory to a dispute, etc. I'm not saying any of those things did happen in this instance, but only that they're common enough that it's unworkable to close off opportunities for future review. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Revoking talk page access should, in my opinion, only be done if either for users who have been abusing the talk page right, or for suspected sockpuppets of users who tend to do so. This user falls into neither category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering that his talk page access has had to be removed during both of his previous blocks (blocked 28 July 2012, talk page access revoked 30 July 2012: and blocked 17 July 2016, talk page access removed 19 July 2016), I don't think it is fair to say that there was no "continued abuse of the talk page" after blocks or that he doesn't fall in the category of "users who have been abusing the talk page right". If you have had two blocks where the talk page right had to be removed after two days, it seems perfectly acceptable and preventative to immediately remove that access when blocking for the third time. I don't know whether ArbCom has the right to simply reinstall the talk page access or not (i.e. to override a community sanction);, but it certainly shouldn't act as if there was no reason or history for this community action. Fram (talk) 11:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure it is within scope of Arbcom to do this actually. The ban/block appeals Arbcom is *supposed* to hear are limited in nature. TTT was not blocked or restricted as a result of oversight or checkuser, there is no privacy issue and they were not blocked as a result of arbitration or arb enforcement actions. As a community imposed sanction that was not referred to Arbcom, it is not up to Arbcom to alter it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem that this was out of line with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Handling of ban appeals, but that is a procedure that ArbCom created by itself via motion, and ArbCom can modify it at any time if it so desires. ArbCom's true "scope" is still prescribed by the arbitration policy, which gives the Committee the broad authority "to hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users". I take "appeals" to mean that the committee is authorized to make modifications to community sanctions. (Under what circumstances this authority should be exercised is a different question, and I don't have any comment with regard to this particular case.) With that being said, it's also imprudent to frequently ignore procedures, so if the Committee will hear more of these kinds of appeals, it should consider amending their appeal procedures accordingly. Mz7 (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the wording of the policy, any user should be able to appeal any block to or ban to arbcom or (but not, imho, and) Jimbo if no other avenues of appeal are available to them for reasons other than exhausting them. I do not know whether this applied in this situation or not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion when BASC was disbanded indicates otherwise and the scope of appeals Arbcom would be handling was narrowed as a result. Since this situation falls outside of that narrowed scope, what was the point in disbanding BASC if arbcom is just going to ignore its own motions? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

One could argue that the removal of TPA is actually beneficial to the user, since on the previous occasions that he's been blocked he's posted a large number of increasingly TLDR unblock requests, started arguments with other users, attempted to persuade others to proxy edit for him, and on one occasion had his current block extended for abusing other editors whilst blocked. It's no wonder that TPA kept being revoked. YMMV, of course. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Without having any knowledge of the cirucmstances of this block, or of this user, outside this thread my initial reaction is that that situation is the sort of thing the WP:ROPE essay was written to cover. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite, when I enacted the block, it was in fact these repeated TLDR issues that made me concur with the consensus at the ANI thread that talk page access should be denied from scratch. And as it turns out, TTT has quickly resumed this habit of posting walls of text now that he can use his talk page again: [16]. De728631 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Walls of text aren't against policy and we don't preemptively block talk pages even if there were problems in the past, per policy. I assume Arb was just acting in an oversight rule and undoing part of the sanction that was inconsistent with policy, which seems to be within their remit. Everyone should have the right to appeal at the community level at least once. He has politely ignored advice but that is his prerogative. If we want him silenced before community appeal and forced to go to Arb, we should have had a ban discussion, not a block discussion. It isn't that I have high hopes of an unblock, but I think this was not our finest hour. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As explained above, your "we don't preemptively block talk pages even if there were problems in the past, per policy" seems to be incorrect. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options clearly says "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page.": it was clear from the previous blocks that "continued abuse of the talk page" after the block was to be expected in this case, and preventing problems is the core reason for all blocks. If every time a user has been blocked, we need to reblock with talk page access removed afterwards, then it is only natural and within policy to remove talk page access right from the start of such a reblock. Fram (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You've proven my point with "was expected in this case", which means it was preemptive. "Continued abuse" means more than a single outburst, present tense. Plus this was an ANI discussion, not an emergency situation dealing with WP:OUT or WP:NLT. You're overstating the amount of "problems" you can expect on a single user's talk page, which is quite limited. You are opening Pandora's box when you condone blocks like that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
      • And where does the policy state that "pre-emptive" (i.e. preventative) talk page access removal is verboten if it is based on previous instances. It is not a case of "a single outburst, present tense", but repeated instances. No idea why you add "Plus this was an ANI discussion, not an emergency situation dealing with WP:OUT or WP:NLT. " which has nothing to do with this whole discussion. It was an ANI discussion, so quite out in the open, not one admin singlehandedly imposing a forbidden action, hoping that no one will discover it. "You're overstating the amount of "problems" you can expect on a single user's talk page, which is quite limited." That's quite an overstatement I must have made. Are you arguing that the other talk page access removals were unwarranted? If not, then why would these problems be insufficient as reason this time around? I think you are seriously overreacting and grasping at straws to condemn this talk page access removal. Fram (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Others are arguing it was an overreaction to take away talk page access. Our jobs as admin isn't to hand out the pitchforks, it is to uphold policy when we use the tools. The policy is self-explanatory. This isn't even about him, it is about how we choose to administrate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The policy indeed is self-explanatory. It isn't about OUT, NLT, or "a single outburst, present tense". Every use of the admin tools should be preventative, based on prior behaviour. This action clearly was based on repeated prior behaviour. You have not given one shred of evidence that this was in any way a policy violation, all you do is repeat it as a mantra. That you would choose not to have removed talk page access is perfectly acceptable, but doesn't mean that anyone else was out of line (never mind "opened Pandora's box", sheesh). Fram (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, WP:ROPE was mentioned above, and since TPA was returned, TTT has persuaded another editor to post an 18K mostly-irrelevant wall-of-text unblock appeal to ANI here. Most of the comments so far appear to be either "change the block to indef" and/or, ironically, "turn off talkpage access again". Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sometimes when you get what you wanted you discovered that you didn't want it after all. I can't say I'm surprised. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not either, and I've spent the time to insure he has good information, so any failure is his alone. Again, this isn't about HIM, this is about choosing what kind of community we want to be. I opt for fair, even if we have to bend over backwards sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Then why not present a fair reading of the policy and of the actual situation here, instead of what you did above? Fram (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I gave you the last word above, that should be sufficient. It appears the majority of Arb agree with me and I don't see a flood of editors here protesting, so perhaps moving on is best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I have seen no one but you insisting that any policy was violated after I had explained the actual circumstances. On the other hand, we have "Once this request is closed (assuming its rejected, if its accepted its not relevant) suggest re-removing talk page access for the duration due to previous disruption and abuse" at the ANI discussion. Oh, and if you want to move on and let someone else have the last word, it's best not to repeat the same non-arguments a few lines further down. Fram (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Thats my comment, twofold really - 1. TTT has consistently over an extensive period of time shown they are disruptive even when blocked. 2. I reject the notion that Arbcom has authority to alter community imposed sanctions when they disagree with them. Either they should have actually *dealt* with the appeal reject/accept, or referred them to UTRS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
              • The block conditions said they couldn't appeal to UTRS I believe. Doug Weller talk 14:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Fram there is more than a subtle difference between saying that policy doesn't allow something and saying policy was intentionally violated. I haven't assigned blame, I'm just saying we shouldn't do that except in extraordinary circumstances, which this isn't. It was an honest mistake, but it was a mistake. If I saw continued abuse, I would be the first to pull access but the last time I looked, he has been using the talk page precisely for appealing his block, well within the boundaries during a block. I don't think he is being effective, but that is beside the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
              • You are using behaviour since the talk page unblock as evidence that the talk page block was not for continued abuse? With the same reasoning, every editor who behaved correctly after a full unblock would be evidence that the original block was wrong (or "a mistake") and not allowed by policy. Now, if he had been using his talk page correctly during a block and then had talk page access removed, you would have had a very good point. Now, not so much... (and while you are right that "there is more than a subtle difference between saying that policy doesn't allow something and saying policy was intentionally violated.", it is a strawman: you are claiming that policy doesn't allow it, I say it does. No discussion of intentional violations has occurred). Fram (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this specific situation, but as a general statement, a block with talkpage access disabled and a UTRS appeal preemptively denied leaves ArbCom as the only theoretical avenue of appeal. By this statement, ArbCom seem to be saying that community-based appeal mechanisms shouldn't be disabled in the first instance, because ArbCom doesn't want to be the default sole appeal route where there are reasonable alternatives. Thus, I do not see this announcement as an action increasing ArbCom's remit or as inconsistent with the abolition of BASC (an ArbCom-based avenue for block appeals), as seems to be implied in some of the comments above, but if anything, the reverse.

Of course there may be exceptional instances of abuse in which no appeal is going to be entertained by anyone, but we need to make sure noticeboard decisions that foreclose all appeals in advance do not become a routine practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• I cannot help but be reminded of Mortification of the flesh. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well, it could have been worse. GoldenRing (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for that, it amused me greatly (mainly for being on-point). Hobit (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

"Some accounts were blocked" includes Ricky81682, which seems a pretty glaring omission. —Cryptic 13:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That quote refers to some of the accounts Ricky had been operating were blocked by admins when they edited (rather than now). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

So are all of his accounts now blocked? Which accounts were they? Is there a privacy reason these accounts are not public (or are they public somewhere) as all their contributions will need to be looked into. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

His block log shows an SPI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah cheers. Wikijuniorwarrior - surprising. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is bizarre. What was he trying to accomplish by doing this? Makes no sense. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see this particular case until it hit his talk page today, but I am pretty sure that at MfD he would sometimes make IP edits arguing the side he disagreed with in an outlandish fashion in order to discredit it. These edits would happen only when he was particularly frustrated and were not a constant thing. Seems like a case of a good editor who sometimes just let their frustration get to them when arguing in the traditional way didn't seem to be getting anywhere. Although I disagreed with him a lot, I'm sad to see him go as well - he did a lot of really good work around here and there will definitely be sysopping slack to pick up in his absence. A2soup (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this comes as a bit of a shock. Ricky81682 isn't someone I'd expect to make sockpuppets. Sad to see a good admin go. Omni Flames (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

+1 - Ricky is the last person I would expect socking from, Such a shame as he was such a great admin and editor IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 14:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait. The user is indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia and yet he is still eligible to become a admin again? GamerPro64 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What they meant is that if the user eventually appeals the block successfully to the functionary team:

1. The user is explicitly not eligible for restoration of adminship without an RfA (goes without saying but no harm in spelling it out)
2. ArbCom doesn't reserve itself a veto right on any re-adminship request and it isn't required to consult ArbCom for any such re-adminship request, it can go through normal community channels (RfA)

Realistically, I don't see it ever happening, even in ten years. Block appeal? Maaaaaaybe in years. Successful re-RfA? Not a snowball's chance in hell, as we say. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A desirable copyedit in these sorts of announcements (this has come up before) would be to say "... may seek administrator status again only through a new RfA." The word "only" being the key, to make it clear that this is a sole theoretical option, as opposed to an expectation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

although, on an outside chance, in future there might be another way to gaining adminship. Agathoclea (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• The conventional wording was previously "... by the usual means," but there were always questions what that meant, too.... I supposed one could say "... a request for adminship, or any community-based process adopted as a successor to it," but that is bureaucratic and unnecessarily wordy. No wording can every satisfy everyone.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• If we're getting very technical, there are already other routes to adminship: Jimbo and the WMF can in theory +sysop unilaterally, and the sysadmins can do so for emergency/technical reasons. (To get even more theoretical, stewards and bureaucrats would both be allowed to +sysop unilaterally if it were, for some reason, the only way to respond to a major emergency.) Of course, these are all extremely unlikely scenarios, but my point is, none of these occurrences is something that ArbCom has the authority to prevent (and in the case of the WMF and the sysadmins, something it can't even overturn), so it's already implicit that when ArbCom says "except via a successful RFA," it's not ruling out other hypothetical routes to adminship. It's just a shorthand way of ruling out the routes which are only available to ex-admins in good standing, namely procedural reinstatement at BN or by Committee order. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Agathoclea, Newyorkbrad, and PinkAmpersand: The possibility of a new process replacing or running alongside RfA was discussed during my time on the Committee. From memory, we decided that if that were to happen the Committee would just pass a single motion making it explicit that anyone desysopped by arbcom with a restriction that they may only regain their tools through a successful RfA, who has not since been resysopped, may use the new process instead. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The wording is meaningless. ArbCom has the right to amend any ruling that it makes. Therefore, it can vacate the ruling, or alter the ruling to remove the restriction requiring an RfA. ArbCom reserves a veto right on any re-adminship request. ArbCom has the right to overrule and RfA and in fact is exercising that right here. The only way a desysopped admin can be restored is through ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

What part of "may regain the tools via a successful request for adminship" says that we have the final decision? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I wondered how Ricky81682 stayed sane while trying to clean out the stables. I was always thankful to see the work he did because someone has to occasionally take out the trash, despite the hoarders who like to pile it up. It appears Ricky81682 could not stay fully sane without some dark games. This is extremely sad—after a break, I would welcome his return. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, just Wow..this is pretty insane, going thorough the accounts of those certain 'socks' i wonder, how certain the CU data is? If those were his socks, I just don't see those accounts can be related to Ricky's, some of those 'socks' had no idea about wikipedia policies..I can definitely see a link, but I'm very sure they were not ricky's....I have an odd feeling its a friend of Ricky's or stalker, if there ever was a cross in the IP's (same IP), then i hope its either from a public place like a library or computer centres or an open wi-fi..none of the socks 'sided' with Ricky's MfD/AfD's or as i said, understood our policies..this is quite silly..I personally don't think Ricky did this, either one of these other socks (who i think is the same person) stalked Ricky. The oldest account on that list is WikiCreativeJuicer, its talk page discussion is interesting, maybe another CU can find a link between those sock accounts and Ricky cause bar what i said, there isn't any..Personally, I think the CU should investigate Puffin cause its the only link I can get....That is your master sock/compromised account..due diligence please..we expect admins to block users as socks without proof, we do not expect that from CU's..--Stemoc 02:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Ack. Just, "Ack!" --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure ARBCOM wouldn't make such a claim and block lightly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the announcement did say that "...Ricky has evaded scrutiny and accountability..." and "...His explanation did not adequately address the technical and behavioral evidence..." Can't Ricky make some sort of statement with a post at his talk page to help us all understand better? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing the contributions of the IPs (166..., 107...) that followed Ricky around from the WoP days puts a lot more pixels in the picture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Is that intimating that the 166 and 107 IP's were also Ricky? Because that would be a spectacular piece of manipulation. Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The next question is of course 'How did he get away with it?' followed up by 'What needs changing to prevent this happening in future?'. Given the time when they received their admin rights, is this a case of not moving with the times and being aware of the additional scrutiny admins are under? Or was it 'they have been here forever, they cant be doing anything dodgy'? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if it is worth finding a way of ensuring that administrators are subject to greater scrutiny the longer ago they were appointed. An idea unpopular with some, I know. MPS1992 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't expect anything competent from this ArbCom. They're about to desysop an editor who has spent months keeping nonsense off the main page, whilst giving a slap on the wrist to an actual disruptive editor. Some of ArbCom are not people who you can expect anything sensible from, and not only that but some of them are quite clearly voting for their own POVs. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Today I learned an indef block and desysop is a "slap on the wrist". clpo13_(talk) 22:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I think you'll find I'm talking about George Ho. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I assumed your statement was related to this announcement, as the other comments are. clpo13_(talk) 22:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah sorry that may have been confusing, I'm just frustrated at the inability of our community to elect 12 (or even 8) competent people at the same time. (Yes, some of you are good, but ...) Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
          • The days when there were 8 competent people who were Wikipedia editors are long past. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm curious what you think a competent ArbCom would have done here? Hobit (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
            • Oh, my comment was just a reply to Anna. I was talking about the case below, not this one, which I haven't really looked at. Black Kite (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

While I didn't always agree with Ricky81682 (particularly in regard to userspace drafts), though it has come to light that they made other mistakes, I never noticed them using their administrator tools inappropriately. In the past, I always respected them for that. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a very adequate measure for an administrative account that has grossly abused multiple accounts. If we have any chance of sending a message to administrators that they are not exempt from community practice, then I think just as many blocks need handed out to them as if they was a non-admistrator. Just my two cents. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

@Opabinia regalis: Don't these need to be posted at m:Steward requests/permissions, too? Not that it's any sort of urgent, but with three of the four appointees already on the identification noticeboard I was surprised I hadn't gotten a ping notification of the appointments being listed there yet. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

From what I gather, we're waiting for everyone to be on the board and it'll be posted then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: That would work for me, although I'm curious: is there anything preventing me from requesting the oversight bit myself with a link to the announcement posted by Opabinia? I figure the sooner I have the OS bit the sooner I can be available for oversight requests on IRC. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You know, I actually have no idea not sure it's ever come up. I guess it would primarily depend on whether the stewards are happy with that or want an arbitrator to request it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose no better way to find out than for me to try. If they want arbitrator confirmation one of y'all can do that when you request the others. =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it would depend on who was actioning the request - due to some past issues some might want arb confirmation. It is possible for the arbs to file all the requests, and the steward can put the one with the missing ID on hold. --Rschen7754 07:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Yeah, the plan was to do them all in a batch. Rschen's suggestion makes sense but then I'd ruin the experiment :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rschen7754, Callanecc, and Opabinia regalis: Well, I posted the request. I guess we'll see how it's handled. =) Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, apparently it's the ArbCom motion/announcement that matters more than an arbitrator requesting the userright be given, cause steward Linedwell approved the request. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 09:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that it's supposed to work that way. I believe we've discussed it before but I can't find the discussion. I do know that it's the Committee decision (and announcement of that decision) that is vital. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. The noticeboard announcement says that some people have been appointed but I don't see any request on meta:Steward requests/Permissions for permissions to be assigned other than Ks0stm's, and only Ks0stm has been processed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: As in the thread above - the plan was to do them as a batch after everyone had signed the forms. Though Rschen's method works too. I believe Amanda is going to wrap up the paperwork tonight. I'm traveling at the moment, so I'm mostly useless :) Opabinia externa (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Comment:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Proposed decision
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Doncram: Motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram (suspended)

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment/Questions I hesitate to complain, but the motion passed seems unreasonable, or the reasoning is not explained, or at least that reasoning for it is not explained in terms that I understand. Does anyone else agree?

I do appreciate that the motion expires in six months. But... I don't understand why the arbitrators have imposed this; it seems like punishment, and undue. The terms set appear as if they would have been reasonable six months ago, but not now. Note I was under an effective probation for six months, and there were no problems, and I made good efforts to remove sources of some others previous dissatisfaction.

My request was for the arbitrators to end the case. The request was put into a first motion that eventually received 6 votes of support vs. 7 opposing. The second motion, which appears as punishment to me, empowers any uninvolved administrator to re-impose a non-term-limited edit restriction on new NRHP article creations if they deemed any error on my part (whether related to a new article or not) in a broad topic area (all of NRHP, far more than new articles). Such an admin action presumably would stand until a future arbitration committee came in, if/when I would seek to have that overturned.

Comments by five arbitrators (DGG, Amanda (DQ), Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Drmies) seemed to me to indicate recognition of the facts of the situation, and to indicate that they did not see reason why the narrow edit restriction should not simply be rescinded. It appeared to me that they had read the request fully, and perhaps looked into the situation a bit more. These nonetheless voted in mixed ways on the 1st motion with one opposing it (their votes respectively were: for, for, 1st choice, 1st choice, oppose). I see no explanation explicitly stated why any arbitrator would oppose the first motion at all, but 7 oppose it. And 11 voted for the second motion (as only choice or second choice), without substantive discussion of DGG and Amanda's oppose votes and their reasoning. Statements like "I prefer" are not explanations.

I wonder if what really happened is that, late in the year of service, the arbitrators are being very economical in their efforts, and tend to want to go for a "compromise" if one is available. Here, however, the second motion would have represented a compromise six months ago, but it is not a compromise between any two things now. The second motion was apparently intended to be a compromise between ending the case and current status, but what one or two arbitrators thought was current status was wrong (it appeared they thought an NRHP-wide topic ban was in place). So it is not a "middle ground", and that was pointed out. Am I incorrect to feel that the following arbitrators appeared to have unquestioningly accepted that it was a compromise? But why ignore the statements of DGG and Amanda and myself? Or I am missing something. Was the case discussed on the private email list?

I would like to ask:

• Does anyone else agree that there is not an explicit reasoning given for the outcome chosen?
• And under what circumstances at all would the arbitrators have chosen to end the case? It would be poor if the answer is none.
• I would appreciate if justification for the ruling could be explained. Like in terms that I could explain to someone else, say if they are seeking to discredit me by using the fact of the new sanction being imposed.

sincerely, --doncram 03:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Punishment? Unless I misread something, you've had a restriction removed and no restrictions added. Nyttend (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I explained it adequately. I appreciate that a narrow edit restriction was removed, but I and at least two arbitrators don't think it is right that a probation was imposed, and I don't see explanation of the probation. It's not right in general for administrators to impose things without explaining themselves, and I am asking for explanation, which I am allowed to do. At my Talk page, I was given notice "Discuss this at" this location. --doncram 02:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Doncram, the "probation" motion was proposed on October 22 and your one comment on the matter was made on October 23. Since the motion wasn't enacted till November 5, it's unclear why many more paragraphs of text are needed now that the matter is over. The effect of the two proposed motions is of course identical assuming you do indeed behave as you indicated that you intend to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Self-nominations for the 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 6 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections is now open through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. If you wish to participate, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Should this be on the actual notice board rather than this talk page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: the noticeboard header says that posting there is restricted to ArbCom and the clerks. The election is not an ArbCom proceeding strictly speaking, being run independently for obvious reasons, but everyone who has the NB watchlisted will see the messages posted here.—Odysseus1479 07:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

I agree with the original and current determinations of the Committee, and see no grounds for lifting the topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I like to feel that I'm fairly fluent at translating WikiSpeak to human, but I can't parse Remedy 5: Fæ banned (March 2013) in which Fae was unblocked with the conditions that he was topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed as well as topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed is suspended for a period of six months at all. Is it the unblock that's being revoked, or the ban on sexuality topics? ‑ Iridescent 00:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Fae was unblocked. The unblock had conditions: TBANs from BLPS and images related to sexuality. Said TBAN is suspended for six months. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• Salvidrim is right. It's the topic ban that's being suspended. Weird how eight of us looked at that and didn't notice anything amiss... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• It was confusing for me too. Highlighting the topic bans in green helps, but the sentence still reads as a lift of the motion to unblock. Maybe you could revise the sentence along the lines of something like: "...in which the conditions for Fae's unblock were that he was...". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#December_2016 the result is given as "Passed 8 to 8", which I believe should read "Passed 8 to 0". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed by L235, thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Is the topic-ban from homophobia for one year as originally agreed or is it indefinite like the other two? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Indefinite. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Where are the proceedings for this motion?- MrX 21:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  Maybe you can hunt down the chapter and verse in the procedures, but I'm pretty sure ban appeals do not need public proceedings. --Izno (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  It would help, though, to clarify that there were indeed proceedings, even if they were private: something like "Following an appeal to the Committee..." would work fine. Without including background information, this notice has a bit of an arbitrary feel to it – but ultimately, this does not strike me as a big deal at all. Mz7 (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  The unblock notation actually does say that it is following a successful appeal (and appeals of this sort are always done privately), so that's what this is. No big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  Ah excellent. Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, this is following an appeal by email. Although I kind of like the idea of just randomly unbanning a few people, as an experiment ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  I'm was not aware that block appeals ware done privately, nor do I understand why that would be the case considering I can't fart on this Wiki without their being an indelible record of it. Convenient though.- MrX 00:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  Block appeals are often done privately, that's what UTRS is for. This was a site ban appeal however, and since site banned editors can't appeal other than by email, and we can't discuss private email in public, this was done by email as usual and according to policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  What provisions of that policy prevent ArbCom from disclosing appropriate portions of the appeal and allowing community comment? If it's simply because of the mechanics of the process, an exception to the "don't quote emails" rule could easily be made, with a provision to allow the quoted party notice and an opportunity to object. That would be far better than the "don't talk about Fight Club" process we have now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  ^[FBDB] I was once randomly blocked by ArbCom. (No, I'm not trying to relitigate that. Please: no overreactions.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• what's the record for number of separate active topic bans by an editor who is not blocked? After 3 separate topic bans in different areas, you'd think someone would notice a pattern. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've certainly noticed a pattern.--v/r - TP 21:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• I'm pleased to see this decision. Certainly, this is a complex case, and I can easily understand how Floq and others may wonder why I said that, but this seems to me to be a user who needs to stay away from several topics, but who can be a positive in other areas of the project. I've worked with North before, on topics completely unrelated to the bans, and found him to be good to work with. Given how disturbing the causes of the bans are, it's surprising, but people are complicated, so go figure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oh look another editor topic banned for editing articles in a way that progressives didn't approve of. Since the "personal attacks" weren't personal attacks at all and were nearly all from the casepages and amounted to describing the behavior of others. Not surprised at all.--v/r - TP 21:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hardly. In both the Tea Party and Gun Control cases North8000 was topic banned along with a number of others on both sides of the dispute. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• You're mistaken on the Gun Control case. The editors on the other side of the dispute were only "reminded". The thing anti-gun control editors all received topic bans. Please rereview.--v/r - TP 23:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Mm, you're right there - I misread Goethean as having been t-banned. Having said that, North's sanction was hardly unexpected given the socking. I remember being surprised at the time that it was extended to a site ban but the arbitrators, after the Tea Party case (and the Homophobia issue, which would probably have ended up at ArbCom had North not voluntarily topic-banned himself) were clearly of the opinion that it was repeated behaviour. But there's another point - in all 3 cases, North's issue was not what he was saying, but how he was doing it. Hopefully he can be a productive editor again now, however. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I mean, I don't have to fall on the sword for North here. There are still 3 other users who received topic bans for first offenses and two users on the other side of the ideology that were given reminders for a repeat offense.--v/r - TP 01:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: Wasn't there also documentation of persistent socking, tendentious misrepresentation of sources, and other classic no-no's? Those are not partisan issues and I don't think we should suggest that Arbcom is a political kangaroo court biased against right-wing POV-pushers. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've looked at that material. The misrepresentation is sources is based on a personal opinion of certain editors that the source isn't talking about gun control and shouldn't be in a gun control article. However, it was talking about confiscation of guns and the measures leading up to that. Simply that it didn't flat out say "gun control" is merely a civil POV pushing tactic. Secondly, yes, they were editing as an IP. However, two other editors weren't and also received topic bans while all the parties on the other side of the issue were simply "reminded" not to engage in shitty behavior.--v/r - TP 23:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I presume the reminder was effective, so that had the desired effect. But socking to join a contentious tail-chasing discussion is not best practices. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Could a committee member or clerk clarify the effect of this announcement, i.e. what's different from before? It doesn't look any different from what I remember about the previous state of things, so I'm wondering if it's basically just giving an authoritative interpretation and additional details about something that was unclear before. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: It provides (a) clarification on what to do with new articles (or rather that we don't have to delete them), and more importantly, (b) clarification that the restriction does not apply to talk pages. The previous wording technically was equivalent to a topic ban, including talk pages, user talk, etc. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I just would appreciate it if the Committee would provide some sort of one- or two-sentence preamble: "Because there's been confusion about X in our original decision, here's a clarification" or "Because Y in our original decision seemingly isn't needed anymore, here's a change". Obviously this wouldn't always be appropriate, e.g. one of those announcements that says "Remedy 8.1 in the Alice v. Bob case is repealed", but it would be helpful in cases like these when there are a bunch of statements. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. It would definitely be clearer for folks who have not been following along at ARCA but who see the notices here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And more to my point (selfishly :-), clearer for folks like me who pay no attention to Arbcom matters until they reach WP:AN; aside from one to which I was a party, I can't remember ever looking at a case that's in progress. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, the point remains that more descriptive notices could be valuable. :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Original announcement

It occurred to me that someone might ask, so: this is a decision of the 2016 committee that just hadn't been actioned till now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume this appeal was heard privately, so there is no visible Arbcom discussion? Even so, I recommend the result be logged in WP:ARBR&I. Otherwise there is no place admins can go to look up status of this ban. Also, when you say 'unbanned' I guess you are saying that the site-ban was lifted. So the R&I topic ban stays in place with a bit of wordsmithing (plus some interaction bans) but otherwise Captain Occam can resume editing Wikipedia. There is also a ban entry for Captain Occam in WP:EDR which should probably be updated with a link to the new motion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Done by L235: [17], [18]. Usually the clerks do that paperwork; I for one would screw it up ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reason WP:SHARE should not continue to apply to Occam & Ferahgo? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I should be requesting this: could an admin please unprotect my userpage? It was fully protected while I was banned. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• I guess it would have been nice to have an appeal open to the community, 'cause I think this decision of the committee is a rather bad one, and will not benefit Wikipedia. We shall see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• BMK, we can't always do everything out in the open, but that's a general statement, as you know. Strictly speaking the ArbCom route is a valid route--the community may well come back in if future behavior is troubling. Speaking only for myself, I try to see the good in people, and while I'm frequently disappointed (in myself even more than in others) I am a big fan of creating conditions whereby we bring editors back in. We shall see, indeed. There is no doubt that the return of a formerly editor can cause friction, but that's the nature of collaborative editing. I hope for the best. Thanks, and happy new year, Drmies (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note, Drmies. Happy New Year to you as well, and I certainly hope that you are correct and that I am wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement