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.

I received an unsolicited e-mail from Captain Occam using Wikipedia's e-mail facility. I have directed him not to e-mail me again, and that I would bring it to ArbCom if he did. His response in another e-mail to me was "Ha ha ha, really? ... Please go ahead. I'd say it's about time ArbCom took a look at your behavior."

(Note: the text of the second e-mail is quoted here without the permission of Captain Occam, since the e-mail was unsolicited, and he was instructed not to contact me again. I'm willing to forward it to whomever wishes to see it.)

His first unsolicited e-mail was about an edit I made to Race and intelligence, a subject that he is topic banned from. Is the fact that he used the Wikipedia e-mail facility to contact me a violation of his topic ban? If so, then I believe he should be blocked, have his TPA removed, and his access to e-mail cut off. In fact, my real opinion is that he should have his ban reinstated, since he should never have been unbanned in the first place.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Original case remedies here
• Amendments by motion here
• I;m not certain where his unbanning discussion is. Private e-mail?
• Captain Occam's sanctions are at WP:Editing restrictions:

Captain Occam is topic-banned from the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. He is subject to a two-way interaction ban with Mathsci (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log). If he behaves disruptively in any discussion, any uninvolved administrator may ban him from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the R&I case page.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe I am under any obligation to inform Captain Occam about this complaint, but in fairness: User:Captain Occam. I would caution Captain Occam, however, to read WP:BANEX very closely so that he does not violate his topic ban in any response he should make here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Thanks for your question. The Arbitration Committee is unable to give a formal response on this page. To seek enforcement of an arbitration sanction, WP:AE is just a click away; if any part of an arbitration decision is unclear, that's what WP:ARCA is for. Clerks have been giving a lot of leeway for unrelated discussion on this page, but this is really only designed for discussion about recent announcements by the Committee. This certainly shouldn't be used to seek sanctions or report problematic behavior. For the benefit of any observers (I know you're well versed in Wikipedia practice, BMK):

• For discussion of specific ArbCom announcements, this page is appropriate.
• For general discussion about the Arbitration Committee, see WT:AC.
• For enforcement of arbitration decisions delegated to administrators, see WP:AE.
• For clarification or amendment of arbitration decisions, see WP:ARCA.
• For assistance with the arbitration process or enforcement of standards of behavior on arbitration pages, see WP:AC/CN.
• To initiate dispute resolution where the prerequisites to arbitration have been fulfilled, see WP:ARC; otherwise, see WP:DR.
• For matters involving private information, see Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee.
• If any of the above is unclear, talk to a clerk or arbitrator or see WP:AC/CN.

In no event should editors expect a formal response from the Arbitration Committee, or from arbitrators acting in their official capacities, on this page. In this case, I suggest WP:AE if you believe the sanction is enforceable in this way, WP:ARCA if you are unsure, and email the Committee if you think the email implicates privacy interests. I know the system seems bureaucratic, but what would be way more bureaucratic is if many arbitrators gave many different (and conflicting) opinions here and ended up confusing everyone and being overruled by the full Committee – there are good reasons we have all this process. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I assume that I can't discuss the race and intelligence article here, but you and whoever else who reads this forum ought to be aware of the background of this situation. The background is these three edits that Beyond My Ken made directed against me a year ago, shortly after I was unbanned. [1] [2] [3] (Note that I am not, in fact, a creationist.) I find his overall attitude with respect to me--and other editors who've disagreed with him--very concerning, and that's what I e-mailed him about.

I don't personally think ArbCom needs to get involved here, but if they think they can do something to help Beyond My Ken to calm down about these types of issues, perhaps that would be helpful. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You e-mail out of nowhere to criticize my editing on a subject you're topic-banned from, and you wonder why I might need to "calm down". Please hear this loud and clear: do not contact me, do not e-mail me, do not ping me or thank me, when you mention my name do not do so in such a way as to send a mention to me. You're a massive discredit to Wikipedia and should never have been unbanned. I want to stay far, far away from me, you son of a bitch. Is that abundantly clear? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Like L235 said. This isn't the place for such a report. WP:AE is where you should go to. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you and to Kevin above, I had already been pondering if AE might be a better place to go. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's cut through this without more bureaucracy. @Captain Occam:, do not e-mail Beyond My Ken again, or I will block you indefinitely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but he also can just block me from sending him e-mail. If it's this important to him that he not receive e-mail from me, I'm not clear on why he didn't do that to begin with. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That's beyond the point. Alex Shih (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Questions for the Committee

I have indeed opened a complaint about Captain Occam on AE, but ask the Committee to read thispost by me, and and this one by EdChem and comment on the questions asked there, specifically (1) whether any decision at AE on this matter is limited by standard enforcement protocols whick only allow a maximum one month block for a first violation of Captain Occam's topic ban; and (2) whether a change of venue to ARCA or AN is necessary if the admins at AE decide that re-instating Captain Occam's site ban is an appropriate response to his actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The answer to the first question is yes, an AE block of no more than one month is the limit for the first violation. However, any admin can block for longer as a normal admin action. If reinstating the site ban is believed necessary then a change of venue to ARCA would be appropriate, yes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Congrats! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Can I ask under what basis a notice of discretionary sanctions can and should be dropped on people? This seems to be egariously awful and comes across as little more than bullying. If it is a valid use of the notice (although deeply chilling and little more tha a way of shutting down any interaction relating to IBs), should this revocation also lead to a similar notice? Should any change to the status of an IB lead to this? - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

By design, anyone editing a topic that is covered under discretionary sanctions can be notified of discretionary sanctions in relation to it. The notice can be placed on anyone editing in the topic area, regardless of what their editing is. Its meant to prevent edit warring and so un-necessary future blocks - and to an extent, enable future blocks. It is designed precisely to be 'chilling' in that respect. As a practical issue, AE wont sanction anyone who has not been notified in advance of sanctions related to a topic, so its common to make sure as many people are aware of the potential for sanctions in advance. So when they do get taken to AE they cant say 'oh I didnt know about it'. Its not uncommon after an arbcom case is closed with DS in a topic, to see many many editors notified of the DS as they may not have been following/involved in the case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Within hours of the case closing, Volvlogia added an infobox to Frank Matcham – an article where SchroCat and I had calmly and politely debated the infobox issue in 2013 – and Sagaciousphil reverted it with the edit summary (No consensus for this; please see talk page, thanks). So I'm the editor who put the DS alerts on both of their talk pages, under the impression that that was exactly what ArbCom intended. Now, my distaste for sanctioning productive editors is a matter of record, so I'm no fan of discretionary sanction, xyz probation, or arbitration enforcement, but ArbCom have got to be clear about this: is every editor who places a DS alert going to have to defend their action afterwards? If so, you might as well rescind your remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Standard discretionary sanctions right now, because no uninvolved editor is going to be cooperating with it. I can understand us not wanting alerts to be placed by editors "with unclean hands"; but those will be the only ones left willing to place DS alerts if this is taken to its logical conclusion. @Worm That Turned, KrakatoaKatie, RickinBaltimore, Premeditated Chaos, BU Rob13, Euryalus, Alex Shih, Callanecc, and Doug Weller: you're the ones who put us in this situation: what's your solution? --RexxS (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts do not suggest wrongdoing. It says so right on the notice. You were perfectly correct to place those alerts given the history of both editors and the context of what happened at that article (though I'll note Volvlogia actually didn't need an alert, given they were a party to the case – they're automatically "aware"). If editors harass those placing alerts, that is itself grounds for sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Rexx was right to place a tag and no he shouldn't be harassed. No one should be harassed.

One problem is that in the past, DS tags have actually been used to harass, intimidate, and threaten so in many cases placing a tag carries with it an unpleasant tone. There's no way of knowing if an editor will feel harassed when a tag is placed since the threat comes out of the editor's history and could also depend on who places the tag. Nor do I think we should be threatening people with punishment because they feel intimidated. However, incivility is incivility no matter where we find it so the question is at what point do we warn and or curb incivility rather than punish-and Wikipedia is not punitive-for reacting badly. What I would like to see, and I have no technical ability to either know if this is possible or how to do it, is that anyone who edits an article under DS is automatically pinged. Failing that rather lofty idea just a note in the template with a little more explanation might make defensive editors feel better. I have also mentioned to editors that an article was under discretionary sanctions and been told the remark was chilling when that wasn't my intent. And one time I actually had the audacity to ask that an editor be made aware and warned of DS after unilateral removals of 7 or so sources. I was sanctioned for several month for my trouble. So yes, DS has lots of baggage. I'd add that giving single admins the power to apply DS sanctions was meant to lighten the load at AE but anytime one admin has that kind of discretionary power trouble can follow.

The remedy is to change the way DS is viewed. How can that happen?(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

Littleolive oil makes very good points here, although their edit summary mentioned odors, which I felt was inappropriate given that olive oil itself can give off quite a pong when it goes rancid. That aside, even leaving a sanctions notice for an administrator -- one would have thought administrators would be above feeling chilled or intimidated by anything? -- can result in all sorts of nonsense splattered across the ordinary editor's talkpage, so I think it is clear that something needs to be done to reassure people about the nature and intent of such notices. I apologize for not having any good ideas as to how to achieve that. MPS1992 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• O).... very very funny!!!(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

You know what I think about the style of arbcom messages, right? (If not, see here.) I received a DS notice, and when I wanted to copy it to my talk archive, I received the largest error message I encountered so far: if I really wanted to send a DS alert to Gerda Arendt? No, I just wanted to archive. Can that be fixed. - Then: will we receive any instructions as what kind of behaviour will/should result in the alert, or will every single one of the thousands who write an infobox every day be notified? - I predict requests for clarification. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You know what, Gerda, one of those notifications you received said that you had received it because you had commented on some case about infoboxes. So what do you do when you want not to receive such notifications -- well of course, you comment some more about cases about infoboxes, as you're doing right here! Welcome home, Gerda. MPS1992 (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It's perhaps as well to note here, since I don't see any mention of it above, that the alert must not be posted on an individual more than once a year. If you try to post it, you get a big pink notice exhorting you to check the history for previous relevant alerts, and to be sure not to alert the person if they received one less than a year ago. The system, in other words, warns against using the alerts for pestering people. Gerda, since you received the standard DS alert for infoboxes from RexxS yesterday, you shouldn't be alerted again until March 28, 2019 at the earliest. If it nevertheless happens sooner, you should consider complaining. (I don't mean to imply that you were threatening her with pestering, MPS1992. Just, the one-year rule is probably not well known, since you only discover it when you actually try to post an alert.) Bishonen | talk 22:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC).

P.S., Gerda, you apparently got the big pink notice when you "tried to alert" your own archive. (Copying it as text from your talk might have been better.) You can just ignore the warning and press "Publish" again. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC).

(ec) I still wonder why I received that big pink thing when I tried to copy to my own. The program should notice that I am I. I am unafraid of arbcom messages. DYK that I even made a DYK about it, my reaction to the first arbcase closure, I mean? ... that the hymn "Jesu, meine Freude" (Jesus, my joy) by Johann Franck and Johann Crüger mentions singing in defiance of the "old dragon", death, and fear? - I keep singing, more to come tomorrow.

ps: yes, I managed, doing exactly what you (and the notice) recommended, - but still think it's no great programming. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good as it helps avoid an editor getting more than one alert a year, minimising pestering as much as programming can do. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing against "one per year", but the program should distinguish archiving, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It might be possible for the programming not to display the warning if user:Example is the editor and the page being edited is user talk:Example or a subpage of that (e.g. user talk:Example/Archive). However, this will require the input of people with far greater technical expertise than me and the template talk page is probably a better place for discussing it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The edit filter should no longer fire for subpages in userspace. T. Canens (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've said this in the past, but I continue to think that it would be helpful to revise the notices to make it clearer that simply giving the notice does not imply wrongdoing. No matter how many times some editors say otherwise, it is a fact that the templates look like a warning. They just do, and that is counter-productive. And this has been a perennial issue. Among multiple previous discussions of revising the templates is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19#Please fix the wording of Template:Ds/alert. I'd really like to see some of the ideas from that previous discussion implemented. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the clerk archiving of the thread containing my suggestions and the most recent discussion, I think the message is pretty clear, Tryptofish, and it feels to me like it can be summarised in two words, the second of which is "off"... perhaps supplemented with a comment indicating a disinclination to produce fecal matter. I'd like to be wrong, but actions speak loudly and the present ones persuade me.  :( EdChem (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Like so many discussions that, for whatever reason, didn't spark enough participants, the conversation kind of faded out... Well, let's try again. isaacl (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to Template:Ds/alert

Currently, the text at the start of ((Ds/alert)) is as follows:

• This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
• The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding (topic), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision can be read [here].

I propose changing it to the following:

• This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that any of your contributions to date have been problematic.
• You have recently edited a page related to (topic). Be aware that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for all pages related to this topic. For more details, [see the Committee's decision].

isaacl (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl and Tryptofish: This proposed wording would certainly be an improvement on what we have. Will ask around to see if there's any objection to changing it. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

My apologies to the original proposer in the previous conversation; I forgot to incorporate the other suggestions made. Here is a revised proposal (with some additional copy edits by me), covering the rest of the text in the box:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that any of your contributions to date have been problematic.

You have recently edited a page related to (topic). Be aware that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for all pages related to this topic. For more details, [see the Committee's decision].

To minimize disruption, uninvolved administrators are authorized, on their own discretion, to impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks.

Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. No other action on your part is necessary. Please don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

isaacl (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Euryalus for the positive response. And I'm fine with what Isaacl proposes. I agree that these changes would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If the notices were delivered by bot, as I suggested earlier, the notices could also be further tweaked to something like:

Hi <NAME>, I am ArbComDeliveryBot and I am an automated account tasked to deliver you this standard message to notify you and other editors about an important administrative ruling relating to the topic of (topic).

You recently made [url this edit] to the (page) article, which falls within a topic area where the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions. Please note that this notification does not imply that this contribution or any others that you have made to date have been problematic. This automated notification is meant to advise you that the topic has seen disruptive editing in the past and can be contentious, and to make you aware of the extra measures that have been put in place as a consequence. For more details on why this decision has been taken, [see the Committee's decision].

In short, however, in order to minimize further disruption, uninvolved administrators are authorized, on their own discretion, to impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks.

Before continuing to edit this topic, you are encouraged to please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. No other action on your part is necessary. If you see disruptive or problematic editing that is not being resolved through talk page discussion, you may formally request that an uninvolved administrators decide whether an action under the discretionary sanctions regime is warranted. Please be aware that this process is for addressing behavioural problems and not for resolving content disputes.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask at the help desk or using an template:admin help notice on your user talk page. ~~~~

It's a bit longer, but also friendlier (I think) and assumes a bot triggered by an edit to the article or talk page that fits some agreed criterion. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@EdChem: One issue with bot delivery is that one edit could trigger two, three, four messages going out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

True, NeilN, though presumably the bot could either produce a list of cases where it was triggered but didn't know which alert to use for user input, or combine them into a single notice. Also, what triggers the bot would need careful consideration as I agree with the points below that a single edit to a BLP by a newish editor fixing a typo is hardly a good reason for triggering a DS notification. EdChem (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Other than the introduction, I think the same message can be used by a bot or a person, with the addition of a parameter for the URL of the edit. Regarding the text, I'm of the school that brevity = wit, so personally I'd suggest some trimming (for example, I would omit "This automated message is meant...", and "In short, however, in order..."). Generally speaking, a shorter message has a better chance of getting its key points across. isaacl (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe call a spade a spade?

Out of curiosity, does anyone randomly hand these out? People say it's not a warning but does anyone really believe that? If I see someone making gnoming or other uncontentious edits I'm not going to slap a DS notice on their talk page. However if I see someone being disruptive or making content changes that I know other editors will find contentious (justified or not) then they get a DS notice "warning" them that "[t]his means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks." I don't think my practice is that unusual. After all, all of BLP is covered by discretionary sanctions but how many BLP-DS notices are given every day? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, there was this from a few days ago, that led to the discussion that has been archived... EdChem (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Any editor regularly adding or removing infoboxes in areas where there have been previous disputes (e.g., actors, music composers) is probably going to make a contentious edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Given how unexpectedly contentious infobox discussions become, I'd probably recommend giving a warning to anyone who participates in one, if only to make them aware that they have options if things turn hostile. Discretionary sanctions work best when people actually know they exist and know where to go to make reports, if necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Given the hairsplitting disagreements that give rise to difficult cases, there can be edits that are right on the line between trivial gnoming and substantive edits. If we are serious about saying that the alert does not imply wrongdoing, then we have to assume that the alert will be given to editors who have done nothing wrong. I've given alerts to editors who have made non-contentious edits, but where those edits, taken in context, seem likely to lead later to edits where the alert matters. And I've also given alerts to editors who really are on the brink of ending up at AE. If I simply give the alert, I almost always get a defensive response, interpreting the alert as a thinly veiled threat. I've gotten into the habit of giving the alert, but adding some text at the end of the edit, outside of the alert itself, in which I tell the editor in my own words that it's a formality and does not mean that I think they did anything wrong. I don't like doing that, because it feels like I am undercutting the official language. Technically, I'm not violating the instructions that the alert language must not be altered, but I feel like I am violating the spirit of it. If the changes proposed above are implemented, that problem should go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

What Tryptofish said. Also, it's not violating the instructions just to leave a note after the template. I normally do it in two edits though to make sure it gets caught by the filter (which I think is part of the instructions for technical reasons, but could be wrong.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm still going back to my BLP example. I bet we get thousands of different anon, new, and vested editors every day making edits on BLPs. How many of them get a BLP-DS notice? Probably a lot less than 1%. Why? Partly because there's non-DS warnings we can give if they're disruptive but mostly because the ones who quietly edit away don't need to be bothered with this "information". An experiment: Go to recent changes and watch all the BLP edits. Would you give a BLP-DS alert to all those editors? If not, who would you give an alert to and why? I may be wrong, but I'm thinking it probably would be to editors who need a warning. Other areas are more specialized (e.g., 9/11, Shakespeare) so editors editing in those areas would likely get an alert much quicker but decisions like WP:ARBIPA cover hundreds of thousands of articles and I highly doubt we're going to notify every editor in that area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No argument from me there. (I mostly do alerts about GMOs, where there is actually text that the community has declared cannot be changed without a lot of prior agreement, and there is 1RR, so it's not like BLPs.) There certainly is no reason to require that every account that ever touches a page must get an alert (alert a bot, anyone?). But I've seen cases where an editor (usually an inexperienced one) has done nothing wrong, but is edging into territory where things could be bad, and where after getting the alert they do the right things and we avoid a problem. So I guess an editor can sort of "need" a warning without absolutely needing it yet. (And don't get me started about class projects getting into DS areas.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with everything you've said here. I think it comes down to how editors define "warning". For some, it's strictly "hey, don't do that". For me, it's that or "hey, I've looked at your edits and you want to be careful here". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Good, thanks. As I see it, the changes discussed just above clarify that difference in definition, as "you want to be careful". And then, if they fail to "don't do that", they have already been advised that that's a big problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If the message said "hey, I've looked at your edits and you want to be careful here", it would be so much more person-to-person talk, instead of an anonymous committee aiming at an editor. Perhaps we would not have lost an editor. We need to do something not to loose more. - You won't loose me but only because I am stubborn and defiant ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

"I've looked at your edits and you want to be careful" 100% sounds like a warning. It sounds more like a warning than the current wording, because it's phrased so personally. If the wording gets changed to incorporate an "I" along those lines, I think it will only increase the defensiveness of peoples' responses, not decrease it. I predict responses along the lines of "who are you to look at my edits? are you hounding me?" "what do you mean be careful? You should be the one being careful!" etc.

I think the problem with the alerts on the whole is less about the wording/format and more about peoples' visceral gut reaction to getting something that feels like a negative assessment. That goes double if it comes from someone who's opposing or reverting their edits, which can already trigger defensive feelings. Regardless of the wording, it's the fact of getting the template in the first place that upsets people. (Which is fair - I don't like getting templated, so I can understand why others wouldn't either).

I'm going to be honest though - I don't know that there's a better method of distributing these alerts that wouldn't cause similar or worse problems. A bot has been floated, but I agree with concerns that it could result in alerts being so common that they wind up getting ignored completely and having no impact. I'm also not sure how it would fare in areas that are less clear to bots, like the recently-authorized infobox DS - would any edit to an infobox trigger it, or just the addition or removal of one? There could be a noticeboard where you could request DS alerts be placed by an uninvolved editor (maybe an admin), but that just puts the action at one remove and you start getting "how dare you put my name on the noticeboard" instead of "how dare you template me". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it might help to give an indication of the variety of areas in which discretionary sanctions have been authorized? I think for those who are aware of the many disputes on Wikipedia and the numerous identified hot spots, it's no big deal to get a notice informing you that you have (perhaps unwittingly) come across one of these places. But if you're a relatively new editor, and are under the impression that English Wikipedia is one happy editing ground, you might feel you hit a landmine when receiving a notice. Maybe putting the notice into the larger context might assuage the recipients? isaacl (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding something like "Other areas under similar restrictions include A B &...Z" so it's more informative and less like a landmine for relative newbies, but I don't know that it will do much to reduce the sting for established editors. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please no bot for (thousands of) additions of infoboxes, please not even for the few removals. I think we can deal with them by arguments if we may talk. For Stanley Kubrick (addition in 2006, removal in 2015 as I noticed in 2017 and commented then), we were silenced. - I look at people's edit's every day to find someone whom to tell something good about them. It doesn't matter if Kubrick has an infobox or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I know you do, and your work on the Precious Editor jewels is really lovely. But I think for most people there's a difference between getting a note that says "I've been looking at your edits and here's some great work that stood out", and "I've been looking at your edits and you need to be careful". One of those is a pleasant surprise, the other can trigger feelings of defensiveness.

I fully agree that a bot for infobox DS alerts would not be the best solution. I'm just not sure what is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thinking: how about the arbs watch out for the few discussions that may come up, and moderate them? And forget the past? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think an Arb or a clerk ought to step in here. The original topic of this discussion remains the revision of the DS alert notices, to make it clearer that they are not threats. I hope the Committee will agree to making those changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Gerda Arendt:, Tryptofish is right. Let's restrict this discussion to DS alerts please. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Saw that too late. Redact as you see fit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Good job ArbCom. I'm glad someone brought this case request against administrators in the abstract for protecting a page they were edit warring on, so that you could put administrators in the abstract in their place. I'm sure administrators in the abstract will consider this seriously should administrators in the abstract consider doing so again. GMG^talk 20:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m not a big fan of vague “admonishments” either. Arbcom is supposed to actually fix problems. If the only thing you can agree on is something that doesn’t fix anything, don’t bother. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(drive-by dgaf comment) Well FPaS was repentant, so any sanction would've been punitive, not preventive. Oh wait...no they weren't.[4] ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with admonishments. It does me a wealth of good for someone to show up and say Hey Joe, you did something stupid. Don't do that stupid thing again. It does me zero good for someone to issue a grand statement saying We remind people not do so stupid things. GMG^talk 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case I'd say your cup is half empty. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the wording that was used was equivalent to We remind you not to do that thing again with additional wording that next time there may be sanctions. I think that's reasonably similar to Don't do that thing again. I agree that "reminding" editors lacks the, well, emphasis that is carried by actual sanctions, but I also believe that actual sanctions should be applied only when there is evidence that they should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but they said pretty much the same thing the last time someone brought FPaS to Arbcom for alleged tool misuse. 'Don't do it again' is only useful if they actually are sanctioned for doing it again. Jbh ^Talk 00:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess that's an issue of disagreeing with the substance of the decision, rather than with the wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

True. I guess though, for me, any body that claims to be authoritative should not be writing decisions which are both general and in the passive voice. The same thing could have been written — A) Administrators should not use their tools in situations where strong personal feelings might reasonably cloud their judgment. If you have strong personal feelings consider asking another administrator to perform the action. Do not use your tools when you are in a good faith dispute with an editor over content that is not one of the clear exceptions to edit warring. B) FPaS is admonished for edit warring and using their tools in that edit war. If they violate INVOLVED again it is likely they will be desysopped — Admittedly I am writing this from my POV and I have not crafted general policy compliance but declarative sentences are the way to go. I would have been, if not satisfied, at least not so frustrated and disappointed if ArbCom clearly articulated their position. To me, failing to do that is a total abdication of responsibility that obscures and obfuscates their views on what happened rather than providing clear guidance to the community and firm feedback to FPaS that will prevent recurrence or insure sanction should it happen a third time. Form follows function. The function was not intended to be clarity so … Jbh ^Talk 03:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

GMG, in light of your multiple statements arguing how several admins were incorrect on the FPaS matter, including FPaS, your seeming criticism of the first sentence seems, at the least, misguided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• The only good thing I can say about an admonishment for someone Doing The Right Thing is the last lot would probably have desysopped him. The lot previous to them would probably have banned him. At least we're getting there slowly, I suppose. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• ^^^ And this is why being on Arbcom is often a thankless job. The motion was close to what I was hoping to see. A reminder to admins about WP:INVOLVE and an admonishment for Not Doing The Right Thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• We disagree, but it'd be a boring world if we all agreed. To be honest MastCell articulated my snark far better just below this. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• What an incredible gift to wikilawyers everywhere. Seriously, this motion is poorly worded and divorced from the reality of adminship on controversial topics, where it's sometimes necessary to "use administrative tools in situations where good-faith editors disagree about how a content policy should be applied". You—the Committee—have now imposed a standard saying that admins cannot do so if they have "a strong opinion on the dispute".

  This wording could not be vaguer. If I, as an admin, see a nominally good-faith user edit-warring to include poorly sourced material in a BLP, I am going to have "a strong opinion" that doing so is inappropriate. I will also have a responsibility to use admin tools in a situation where good-faith users disagree about the application of content policy. You guys have created a ready-made weapon to use against admins who act in such situations.

  I don't understand why it was necessary to make a vague (and not really correct) statement about policy if your intent was to call out a specific admin for a specific action. The motion is three sentences long. It should have been two sentences long; the last two were entirely sufficient. MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

How is someone who is "edit warring to include poorly sourced material in a BLP" doing it in "nominally" good-faith? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I presume MastCell means an editor who normally edits in good faith. I could be wrong, mind. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair. But edit warring and violating BLP does not seem to me to be within the range of "situations where good-faith editors disagree about how a content policy should be applied". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Good faith does not preclude serious damage to the encyclopedia, because good-faith editors can sometimes be clueless, or lacking self-awareness, or any other number of things that lead to problems. For instance, we had (have) a well-known, established, undeniably "good-faith" editor with a habit of consistently misapplying WP:BLP, and edit-warring based on his faulty understanding of the policy. He believed he was doing the right thing, and was not acting in bad faith—in fact, a small number of equally clueless, but equally "good-faith", editors actually viewed him as a paragon of BLP probity. After watching him flail about wrecking talkpage threads and misusing policy, I think many people came to hold "strong opinions" about his actions. (I won't name him, but his name appears in the title of at least 1 ArbCom case). My point is not to shame that individual user, but rather to cite him as an example of someone who, in good faith, disagreed about the application of policy and yet needed to be stopped from harming the project, by people with "strong opinions" about his work. MastCell ^Talk 00:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. Assuming that the first sentence were not to be removed entirely, it might be more precise to change and the administrator holds a strong opinion on the dispute to something else that is more specifically about taking a "side" about content, as opposed to having a strong opinion about policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not a good example. BLPs have special protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and "generally" not all content problems are BLP issues. In most circumstances you can either be a neutral admin (referee) or an editor, who gets to edit and argue content, but not both. (Is that too hard? Perhaps, but do try, because it is generally expected.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not hard at all; what you're describing is, and always has been, our standard. So why not just use the language that already exists regarding involvement? I don't object to the concept of involvement (in fact, I've lived by it as an editor and admin in controversial topic areas for longer than pretty much anyone else on site). I object to making up new, loophole-filled versions of the existing standard. MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, this so called loop-hole version is no more 'loop'-y than the policy -- you will be able to persuade others that you acted appropriately under the policy or not, same as it ever was. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that's where we disagree; I think that this motion is far more "loopy" than our existing policy on the matter—and I still don't understand why that policy wasn't simply quoted, if involvement is the problem here. WP:INVOLVED is quite concrete, and refers to prior disputes with an editor or within a topic area. It doesn't say anything about distinguishing "good-faith" editors from bad-faith editors, or about "strong opinions"—those are nebulous phrases found in this current motion. Hey, maybe I'm too cynical, and no one will try to exploit the gap between this motion and the existing policy on involvement. I hope so. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK but, "strong feelings" it says in policy, how is any of that suppose to be concrete, someone either gets it or they do not - sometimes they may make a mistake, and they should be told "mistake", and others might be oddly confused (really . . . can't edit war over an NPOV dispute I'm having and protect?) so they need to reminded to grok it, too (no, you can't engineer an edit war and then protect because you are participating in an edit war). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Civil but slightly preachy statement

This could have been handled if a single administrator had simply blocked FPaS for 3rr (counting the protection ); This could have been handled by ArbCom requiring FPaS address the issue at the request per ADMINACCT; This could have been handled if the people who have arrogated admin discipline to themselves had actually had the moral fortitude to tell FPaS that what they did was wrong. None of that happened.

By failing to take a firm stand you all have endorsed an administrator abusing their tools. I did not see anyone actually saying abuse did not occur but your water weak 'general reminder to all admins' says precisely that. So, now that I know that ArbCom is not even capable of enforcing the simplest of rules governing administrative behavior, I must conclude that for the long term health of the project that we must work to remove this function from your remit.

There have been several discussions going on recently about ways to do that. I do not know if one of those can be made to work or if it will be something else entirely — it is even possible ArbCom may recognize their current practice is unable to handle complaints short of spectacular disaster and will reform their processes to be more responsive.

I like this project. I do not want to see it fail because the community is unable to respond to the changed needs and stresses that arise when trying to manage the number ?three? website and number one information source on the Internet with processes created back when Wikipedia was only a cool idea. There are a lot of issues, from paid editing, targeted spamming, vandalism and being a target for nationalists and state actors. All of this requires a stable community — one which has confidence in its managers. Make no mistake admins are managers; they deal with all of the shit and they wield actual power here. There has been a rift forming which is weakening that confidence — for the last few years it has been the "Super Mario effect", the feeling that administrators simply lost their bit or got a pass for things other editors would get blocked or banned for; that has now grown to the general feeling that, barring an admin simply stepping down due to calls from the mob, there is no point in because "Arbcom deals with admins". Now we see that, in fact, ArbCom does not 'deal with admins'. There is now a class of editors which, as of now, can do pretty much anything so long as it does not rise to the level of 'spectacular disaster'. That is not healthy. Normal editors can be immediately held accountable for their mistakes and, for a certain number of them, it is demoralizing to see others get away with things they perceive as being just as bad or worse than what they could be/were sanctioned for. I say "perceive" because that is what matters.

It is demoralizing to rank-and-file editors, especially the ones who do not understand the 'informal processes' that those of us who spend a lot of time in Project space have figured out to avoid the circus at ANI, to see that the process we have to deal with editor misbehavior is a crap shoot. Sometimes it works well. Some times it is more like a cage match. Which it turns out to be often depends on which experienced editor or admin steps in to work the problem. When an admin steps into that and rather than working to calm and resolve the matter instead steps in, picks a side and forces their personal viewpoint by abusing their tools the process simply turns to farce.

If nothing else this has convinced me to go write a few new articles so I have a reasonable shot at getting through RfA. I like the maintenance stuff. I am reasonably sure I would be reasonably good and I think I have shown that I learn from whatever mistakes I make. All that aside, I want to see this issue from the other side. See why every admin has not posted binding recall criteria and why everyone thinks an accessible accountability process is untenable. Maybe I am missing something. Maybe I am but, if enough people are willing, some kind of solution can be found.

Whatever the case may be the situation we have now is not sustainable over the long term. Everyone must be accountable for their actions. Whether it be via a ban, a block, loss of user rights or just a documented 'You screwed up. Don't do it again'. I know fixing what I believe to be wrong is beyond me. I am not on some crusade. I want to see if my belief is based on truth and I need help for that. Then I hope others will help solve the problem, in whatever form it may be.

I said this is not a crusade. Maybe it is more a Quixotic quest. Everyone reading this page believes this project is worth spending a lot of their free time to support. I hope that enough people will recognize that the back end, the maintenance and administration of the project — where the sausage is made — is fundamental to the long term success of the project. If we do not have good processes, the people to make those processes work, and accountability for the tools granted to make those processes work; we will end up a train wreck where no one but die hards, spammers and POV warriors want to edit. Wikipedia will cease to be a hobby for its editors. Instead it will be either an obsession or a job. It will be "Wikipedia — the encyclopedia anyone can edit but no one wants to". Jbh ^Talk 00:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Annotated

1. Reminds? Where has this previously been mentioned? WP:INVOLVED (a subsection of the Wikipedia:Administrators policy covers the non-use of tools in areas where administrators have been editing and are in a content dispute, but that's not what this covers, this doesn't mention editing. I'm not saying this statement hasn't been made previously, but it would be helpful to show where.
2. "Generally" not? So when is it "specifically" allowed? That statement is dangerously woolly. How about "must not"?
3. Nebulous and routinely ignored, usually with such pat phrases as "tendentious editing".
4. There are degrees of disagreement.
5. "and" - "and" means that both A and B must be met for this to apply. So, it's implying it's fine for administrators to use their administrative tools in situations where good-faith editors disagree, and it's fine for administrators to use their administrative tools in areas where the administrator "holds a strong opinion" on the dispute, just so long as both don't occur within the same situation. Is that the message you were trying to get across?
6. How are you to know whether or not an administrator "holds a strong opinion"? "Has previously expressed" a strong opinion, maybe. I've said this a number of times, we are not Thought Police. And what's a strong opinion? What if I just have a weak-to-moderate opinion? "has previously expressed a opinion" is far less ambiguous.
7. Should really have been "administrators are advised", unless your intention is suggesting other admins will get one free pass to do this kind of thing prior to being "advised that future similar conduct may result in sanctions"
8. How similar is similar?
9. Commit to your opinions. "Will". Not "may".
10. Such as? Another telling off?

This over-caveated motion will be trampled all over at will and create all sorts of issues down the line. Fish+Karate 09:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What nonsense. Everything and every word of everything can be picked over just like that, which is silliness. The purported standard of perfection in language, you argue for is not anything like the standard of perfection you expect in your own use of words, which is apparently very little, "all over [annotate: all over the world?] at will [you have a will to take involved action?] and create all sorts [none to actually articulate] of issues [that's a good meaninglessness, everything is an issue] down the line [you mean the world has not ended right now and it's like, never]." Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not making an arbitration committee proclamation. Fish+Karate 11:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you're just making annotations as if your want to be. Here's a suggestion, go annotate the Admin policy just like you attempted here. But in the end you may discover either you grok it, or you don't. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I will edit as I choose to edit, thanks. Fish+Karate 13:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, and from time to time, others may call those edits and actions to account, but perhaps they will follow now your precedent of annotating everything you write, because 'trampling what you say at will' is what you argue for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, another cup of coffee, good result, with the clear warning - stop over reaching your admin authority, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise should have been blocked for edit warring - Govindaharihari (talk) 06:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: I am not a current arbitrator so cannot speak for the committee but my interpretation of your points is as follows:

1. It has been mentioned in many places and disagreeing about how a content policy should be implemented is so insignificantly different to a content dispute that distinguishing the two is wikilawyering.
2. For example it would be perfectly acceptable to use administrative tools to deal with copyvios or BLP violations.
3. "Good faith" is indeed not possible to rigorously define (this is a feature not a bug), but it is a standard that is very widely used and understood across the project. Arbitration is not a court of law.
4. True but irrelevant
5. Yes.
   • If there is strong disagreement between two editors or groups of editors, but an administrator doesn't have a strong opinion either way then there are no problems at all with them using admin tools - this happens every day at XfD, AE, ANI, etc.
   • If there is no strong disagreement then either there is consensus and/or it is uncontroversial, in either case it doesn't matter whether the admin holds strong views about it. For example I hold strong views about WP:NPOV but as there is no significant disagreement about it so it's absolutely fine for me to enforce NPOV when there is no significant disagreement about what is/is not neutral in a given situation.
6. Administrators are able to and are expected to judge whether or not they themselves hold strong opinions and act accordingly. I have very strong opinions about many things related to UK politics and so I am very cautions about editing and admining in that topic area. Judging whether another administrator has storng views in a topic area is partly based on their expressed opinions but also the actions they have taken. For example if they have consistently only removed content that is favourable to the subject and never content that is unfavourable (or vice versa), then it is likely they hold a strong opinion about the topic even if they have not made any statements about the matter either way. Restricting it to just expressed statements would be a significant loophole.
   • Your comments about weak to moderate opinions miss the point that it is not about holding opinions. What matters is a combination of your actions and your perceived neutrality. The core point is that if you are not neutral regarding a matter you should not be acting as an administrator regarding that matter.
7. No. The first sentence of this motion is about administrators in general, the second sentence onwards is explicitly about FPAS only. Other administrators will be treated as appropiate to their situation, which may be a warning or may be sanctions depending on the circumstances.
8. That will be, and can only be, judged based on the totality of the circumstances at the time of any future dispute. Your comment is pure wikilawyering, possibly bordering on trolling.
9. "May" is correct, because it will depend on how similar the conduct was, what the circumstances were, whether he self-reverted, what the actions he took were, whether other parties were acting in good faith, etc. etc.
10. Any remedy available to the Committee at the relevant time, ranging from a telling off to site ban, depending on the circumstances, severity, and what the Committee at the time believe is the minium required to prevent further disruption. It is not necessary to specify this as doing so would be pointless and/or may unnecessarily restrict a future committee from implementing an option that is not possible now because of changes in policies and/or technology. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Were these editors able to participate in the discussion or give a statement? Or was the "private discussion" Arbcom only? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  It would be nice to have some more information about this. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  Without getting too much into the details of the private information involved, both editors were invited to discuss the situation with us. Unfortunately due to the technical issues noted below, James did not receive our initial email, which we were not aware of at the time. As a result, after deliberation, we went ahead on the matter without James' input. He has since discussed the matter with us to our mutual satisfaction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• I assume this is related to this YGM notification. As I said I did not receive that email. My email account was "hacked" shortly after my last correspondence with Arbcom in February and I was not able to recover access. I created a new account and updated my address in preferences. Please resend it. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I've now re-sent the email. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Noting that I supported this motion, although I seem to have missed the final vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion just died out. If there's any enthusiasm for rewording, I'd like to see a change in one of the links as the link to committee decisions truly leads editors into the weeds. Take for example, the Arab–Israeli conflict notice. It leads editors to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Editors have to scroll through all that and then notice the General Prohibition link which leads to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. They then have to scroll through all that and figure out what is obsolete and/or superseded in order to know what is expected of them. We're lucky if editors get through the first page without their eyes glazing over. I propose having two links. One goes to the existing decision page in all its wiki-bureaucratic splendor. The other goes to a page listing the current remedies. No history of amendments, no links to more recent wording, no crossed out text - just a straightforward list of general remedies currently in effect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: The clerks were considering doing this on existing authority for the PIA cases, due to an unrelated discussion. If there's no objection within the Committee, GoldenRing (who first brought this up on clerks-l) or I or another clerk are willing to do that very soon.

More generally, I think it'd require a formal procedural change to implement such a system for all cases and discretionary sanctions templates, so that'd be somewhat slower to implement. I've had some ideas stewing around for quite a while regarding this, but I'm travelling at the moment so I won't write them all out. I'll try to get back to you within a week – if I don't, please feel free to ping me. (Just to head off any confusion, nothing here is on behalf of the Committee.) Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree something needs doing - I've been tripped up myself by this in recent days (the 1RR / 24 hours restriction on ARBPIA has been repeatedly amended and some are documented at WP:ARBPIA and others at WP:ARBPIA3 - the latter shows an amendment from last year as the latest revision when the former has a more recent one). Sadly, I'm rather busy with work and the tail end of moving house at present and won't have time to attempt anything for some days. GoldenRing (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@L235 and GoldenRing: I realize that clerks are the ones who should be maintaining these new pages but I'd be willing to do the work for the initial creations if there is consensus for the system and they'll actually get used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in and agree that his would be a fantastic and much appreciated change. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad NeilN kept track of this. There was also a broader aspect discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_37#Proposed change to Template:Ds/alert. (That's a subsection of the discussion linked at the top of this thread.) It sure sounded like there was agreement that such a change would be a good idea, and I'm concerned that it just passed into the archive before anyone actually implemented it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Because the form and text of the notification is part of the discretionary sanctions process related to alerting editors, it's basically up to the arbitration committee to decide what changes to implement (as alluded to above). I hope that some progress can be made in this matter. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• @NeilN: Something like this? User:L235/PIA Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:L235, that is a very clear summary. Somebody should still go through it with a fine-tooth comb to be sure everything is correct. It is assumed you don't intend this to represent any change from what is already enacted. The changing of Template:DS/alert is another matter. Are people proposing that the ARBPIA alert should point to this summary and not to the full arb case? EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: That's right – we're planning on replacing the full case link in Template:Ds/topics to the summary, which will presumably be placed in a subpage of WP:Arbitration/Index. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I want to make sure that the clerks and arbs don't overlook the broader issues about the alert templates, to which I linked above. Please do not leave this undone. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

How experienced does one have to be? I'd be interested in becoming a clerk. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891: See if this helps. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Appointments ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I sent an e-mail, and If I get to become a clerk, great! If I don't, well I'll just keep plugging away.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Plugging away is good. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia’s Editors From Killing Each Other (Paywalled, sorry). NE Ent 21:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh, that headline was changed sometime today. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It still reads as shown above to me. But it should be changed, since it's inaccurate and misleading. It's the physical separation of the internet that keeps Wikipedia's editors from killing each other, or at least causing serious bodily harm. In many cases that is not an exaggeration in the slightest, in my opinion, as it seems unlikely that emotions could run so high without physical violence. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a different original headline. It was more judicial. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Judicious? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No, literally judicial. It called us Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court”. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I C. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Not paywalled from here in the north of England, UK -- or at least I could read the whole article without signing into anything other than Google nonsense. This leads me to a question of interest to me -- does Arbcom still mostly consist of editors from Europe and the British Commonwealth? MPS1992 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There should be more Dutch people on ArbCom, and not just because of the weed. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I take it you're Dutch. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to answer this, but, did you inhale while serving? Do you feel it would help the committee's deliberations? I believe there are some highly experienced editors who work in supplying facilities for production. MPS1992 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you bring the weed, I'll be happy to go Dutch. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing, Trip! ;) Drmies (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm on my way! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hypothesis: The Ballmer Peak applies to arbitration. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Will this be a Dutch roll? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: no. From a quick survey of their user pages the plurality (maybe even a majority) are either in the USA or evidently have strong ties or interests there, and around half as many are Canadian. About a third don’t reveal much on their pages, although they may have done elsewhere on-wiki; some might also be identifiable as American or non- from their talk-page spelling habits.—Odysseus1479 23:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but Canada is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. Leaving the USA very much short of a plurality, just as it should be :) MPS1992 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I wasn’t including my fellow Canadians with the Americans–I‘m quite aware that we‘re in the Commonwealth!—which is why I wrote “and around half as many” rather than “of which around half”.—Odysseus1479 00:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I just be joking with you. MPS1992 (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Unscientific analysis: Arbcom tends to be around about 6 or 7 US, 6 or 7 from UK-Canada-Australia and 1-2 others. Also tends to be a little older - and lately more gender-balanced - than the editing population. That last characteristics is great, but overall it's not particularly diverse. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Do I count as two Arbs as I have two passports (UK and US)? Doug Weller talk 18:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I will go on the record as Canadian. Mkdw ^talk 18:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Now that the wording has been clarified? IMHO, any editor who is sanctioned under the previous wording, should have their sanction lifted. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment but agree with SarekOfVulcan, for the reasons outlined here. This very minor clarification simply reinforced that the interpretation taken at AE was the correct one. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You guys are so charitable. In real life, I'd have expected a contempt of court citation. Banedon (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I tried to express my concerns about this but it was closed minutes after I did so. I still don't know if sanctioned parties are allowed to make one comment per RFC/strawpoll/whatever or if it's one comment for the length of their sanction. I wish I didn't have to ask this question, but Siliconred has opened yet another proposal to add an infobox to Stanley Kubrick (that makes three in fewer than 60 days) now that one of the principle voices against it is under sanction. Do I really have to open another clarification request and fill pages of documentation, or can the arbs let me know what's up? --Laser brain (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sanctioned parties are limited to one comment per discussion. Separately, the constant reopening of infobox straw polls and discussions at Talk:Stanley Kubrick is getting disruptive. I've posted a DS alert to Siliconred, advising them of the existence of infobox DS and asking them to give it a rest. This is an ordinary admin action, as any enforcement of it would also be. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, further to this and apologies for missing it - the ARCA was closed shortly after. People with infobox probation can post once per discussion, so if a new discussion is opened they can post once in that new one as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Euryalus. --Laser brain (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone who knows how please fix the index to archives of this page. The archive that began in December 2017 concluded in March 2018 and the "Undated archive (automatically created)" runs from March 2018 to present. This really confused me when trying to find something that had been archived in April this year. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I updated Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Front matter with the recently concluded archive. isaacl (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 37#DS alerts again has been archived. There was discussion there about an even earlier discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_37#Proposed change to Template:Ds/alert. I hope that the Committee will give a response on this. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please add this--thanks.

Statement from 173.228.123.166

The case request might be premature since discussion at AN is not yet exhausted. If it's just about Philip Cross and George Galloway, AN discussion is headed towards a PC/GG topic ban based on WP:BLPCOI, and now PC has volunteered to step away from those articles, so that would seem to wrap it up. An arbitration case (if opened) should investigate wider issues and shouldn't be called "George Galloway". Particularly, the absence of Twitter posts that show a COI shouldn't result in our allowing long-term biased editing of the sort being alleged. We should all do our best to edit neutrally regardless of whatever private biases we have.

More widely, people on the interwebs are claiming PC is a long-term agenda pusher or possibly a state-sponsored propaganda operation, fueled partly by a blog post[8] by Craig Murray that you have probably seen. Wikipedia doing nothing about this gives the impression we're not keeping our house in order. Jimbo and WMUK reinforced that impression by brushing off concerns (Streisand effect). So now there's a lot of internet outrage directed at us, maybe driven by an anti-Philip Cross propaganda operation in its own right, but people are finding it convincing. There are currently 27 Reddit threads linked to the Craig Murray post, plus the Hacker News threads[9][10] and now [11] that drew my attention to the issue, and who knows what else. I have no idea if those posts were coordinated, but Wikipedia is taking a beating in all of them.

So I think that if there is a private arb case that doesn't result in scorched earth remedies, it will be seen as another whitewash. And the part any case about this would need the most is a tedious examination of Philip Cross's edit history, which is not private and is best examined in the open. There are some limited facets of the situation that involve real names and other private info. But if there is a case at all, a normal open one should suffice, with some limited evidence submitted privately, as is routine in lots of cases when off-wiki evidence comes up. What people outside want most is for us to take the concerns seriously, check them out carefully and openly, and come to some reasonable conclusion. They mostly don't give a rip about left-wing UK politics (Hacker News is a tech forum that is US-centric and if anything leans libertarian) but they don't like the idea of Wikipedia ignoring long-running content manipulation from any corner. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Added

I don't agree with Jytdog's view that this is a COI case: I don't even see it as substantively a BLP case. The central allegation I see is content manipulation through POV-pushing, with BLP impact as an aggravating factor making the problem more urgent. Unless there's surprising new info I also currently don't think the privacy issues are very relevant. It makes almost no difference whether Philip Cross and Oliver Kamm merely follow each other on Twitter or are in some closer cahoots. So if there is an arb case, it can probably ignore that whole question and just focus on Cross's on-wiki edits. Private evidence can still be submitted but it's unlikely to be important.

I imagine the necessary analysis as being something like the Noleander case of a few years back, as I mentioned in an AN post earlier tonight.[12] That case didn't involve BLP's, but it involved a long pattern of tendentious editing that could only be established by examining 1000s of diffs. Lots of that examination happened before the arb case was filed. Similar examination hasn't happened here since it's such hassle, and because the case was somewhat thrown at us from outside. (Since I haven't stepped up, I can't blame others for also not stepping up). BU Rob13 indirectly called for such analysis but I just don't see it happening in the current circumstances.

Under AMPOL discretionary sanctions, people who edit tendentiously in US politics routinely get tbanned from the whole topic area, unilaterally by uninvolved admins. Here, it might be enough to just monitor the situation while giving the George Galloway topic ban some time. If problems continue, AN can discuss a possible wider sanction, maybe from politics in general rather than from BLP's. One can get into all sorts of mischief distorting political articles without touching a BLP. (I'm not claiming Philip Cross is definitely doing that, but only that there are plausible allegations of such that I see as worthy of investigation but whose current status is "unproven").

Alex Shih: people shouldn't be able to make us open arb cases merely by spamming Reddit, unless those cases should be opened anyway. But this may be a genuine instance of us needing an outside poke because we've been asleep at the wheel. That happens sometimes. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

•  On hold – give us a moment. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Kevin, I think 173.228.123.166 has been cleared a while ago. Would it be possible to copy their statement? Alex Shih (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

 –  Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone from Arbcom please confirm the mailing list received my email I sent a couple days ago? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Please see the below, which may have affected you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Resent. Thanks to both of you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• @NeilN: FYI, your email may have been affected by this announcement. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) This needs much wider publicity. DuncanHill (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added it to Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/2018/6, which should be going out to subscribers in the next couple of days. Mz7 (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Don't users on the receiving end of Special:EmailUser get an Echo alert? So if someone can log in to that role account, they should be able to figure out who tried to send emails during that time frame and contact the them directly. T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Good idea – I know Opabinia regalis has access to the account, though I'd assume any member of the Committee could get it through a password reset. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I, uh, didn't think of that am definitely going to do that tonight, already on the to-do list, definitely didn't completely overlook that idea at all... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. Smart thinking, Timotheus Canens! Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Could someone with oversight goggles see whether the suppressed edits [13] [14] [15] [16] could be of relevance to the Philip Cross case request? Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Short answer: not really. Longer answer: We can look, but the very fact that the edits have been supressed means we can’t tell you anything specific. It is also worth noting (as a lot fo folks don’t seem to get this) that in order to completely remove something, every single editbetween the adding of the offending material and its later removal must also be suppressed, meaning thta the longer the gap, the more unrelated edits may have been removed as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes of course I understand that you can't be specific. I do notice that the offending material in one place appears to be added by PC,[17] but it might not be a big deal (e.g. someone's real name mentioned by accident gets suppressed sometimes). Anyway, obviously please inform arbcom of anything you think they should know about. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Could this please be added to my existing statement--thanks.

Addition 2

At this point WP:AN discussion has died down and it looks to me like the sensationalistic Craig Murray post caused more excitement than was warranted, with its theory that Philip Cross was a consortium, or to expand on the more fanciful versions, a squad of MI5 agents carrying cyanide-tipped umbrellas and reporting directly to James Bond. Murray obviously reacted to the (misleading) timecard in Cross's editcount report which in turn was a product of careless engineering on our part. So the issue was overblown but that too is still on us to some extent.

Looking at a "random" sample of PC's edits (User talk:173.228.123.166/pc-analysis), I can report with reasonable confidence that:

• Most of PC's edits are innocuous gnoming. Therefore the high edit count doesn't mean much, and the editing time required is not so large as to look unrealistic for one person. Someone on Reddit posted an alternate theory: "the evidence shows a times reading retiree". That seems more realistic to me than the spy-vs-spy thing.
• PC's main area of activity in the section of edits I've looked at (through 2014) is movies, movie actors, musicians, writers, etc. I mostly admire his taste in subject matter in those areas. Politics may weigh more heavily in the post-2014 edits that I haven't gotten to yet. I'll try to get to those sooner or later, but after posting this I'll be away from editing again, for at least several days.
• There are a few not-so-great edits in the sample but I haven't seen any really awful ones yet. They're at worst still in the range of the usual crappy edits that everyone makes once in a while. As long as there aren't too many, that is perfectly fine. There were many opportunities to inflict damage that I was glad to see that PC didn't pursue.
• Many of the movie actor articles are BLPs and I don't see significant problems in PC's edits of those articles so far. There might be a problem with political BLPs, a narrower field than BLP's in general.
• There are some troubling BLP edits outside the sample and not about George Galloway, such as [18] about Tim Hayward (academic). Maybe I should have looked at a different sample instead, like limited it just to political BLPs as identified by categories. I'm unlikely to do that at this point though. I'm a mostly-inactive editor these days who got sucked into this temporarily because of the Hacker News threads. So I want to get back to other things now.

It's outside of arbcom remit but as public faces of the project, I wish Jimbo and WMUK had been more responsive to queries. I do think the brushoff probably inflamed things more than it calmed them. People who remember Gibraltarpedia, the Rachel Marsden saga, etc etc etc, are more likely to get their interest piqued than dampened when they are told "nothing to see here".

I'm still dismayed by the view expressed in some of the other comments, that there's nothing to pursue without a killer diff. The article venial sin describes theological doctrine saying that even a very large number of venial sins cannot "add up" to a mortal sin. Here on Wikipedia it's the exact opposite: if someone commits a mortal sin (makes a really terrible, prohibited edit), it gets reverted and maybe the person gets sanctioned, and everything is fine. Mortal sins aren't that big a problem here. The worst editors on Wikipedia are instead the ones who commit too many venial sins, i.e. who make large numbers of crappy edits that aren't individually sanctionable or even easily revertable, but that damage the project tremendously when taken all at once. We absolutely can and should try to stop such situations when we can. So it was completely appropriate to investigate this report (result: mostly unconfirmed).

TLDR: I think arbcom should decline the current request while staying open to a new one being filed if something changes (unless arbcom has received private evidence that goes beyond the stuff that was on the internet last week). The Galloway tban should stay in place for now (1799 edits to one contentious article is way too many even without a twitter battle). Further issues (if any) with Philip Cross's edits can be handled the usual ways, on talk pages or AN/ANI. Future complaints there should be checked out rather than brushed off. Whoever does the software for the editcount report should please fix it to not make those misleading timecards. And Jimbo and WMUK should be more responsive when people bring concerns to them.

173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave the copy/paste for someone higher up the food chain than myself, but I strongly recommend all passers-by read the above comments re venial and mortal sins. The very insightful conclusion ("the worst editors on Wikipedia are instead the ones who commit too many venial sins") should be in an essay. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Thanks to all, particularly BU Rob13, for resolving my request. Much appreciated! Swarm ♠ 19:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Does this mean scripts too? Or are they just semi-automated? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, semi-automated tools/scripts are not covered by this motion ([19]). Alex Shih (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that Alex Shih; now, something that's also in Arbcom's remit, see [20]. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, that one is far too contentious for me to comment on. Alex Shih (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

How is this in ArbCom's remit/relevant? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Further_community_input_on_suddenly_closed_"Motion:_Discretionary_Sanctions" about this. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• There was a lot of feedback from the community that the distinction between automated and semi-automated is not clear enough. It shouldn't really be necessary to give a diff to an Arb's comment to make it clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• It's a good move. Allowing this would have made the event a routine and careless procedure down the line, which is the exact opposite of how it should be handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• There are proposals about revising the alert template at Template talk:Ds#Template:Ds/alert and following. Since only ArbCom itself can make decisions about this, I hope that all members of the Committee will take a look. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

KalHolmann

On July 23, 2018, User:BU Rob13 replied to my renewed Request for Evidence of my Offenses: "I have seen this and we will respond by email when time permits. I've been rather busy the last couple days, so I haven't yet collected the diffs for you." The case is now closed, and I am formally restricted, yet I have received no such evidence. KalHolmann (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You asked for evidence of your own actions on our case pages for an appeal. This is busy work, since you know exactly what you did on our case pages, but I will do it anyway. You may not appeal for six months, so I haven’t exactly prioritized it. I will send you the diffs by the end of the week. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

On 26 July 2018, User:Cameron11598 identified my restriction by the Arbitration Committee as a "Topic ban." On 28 July 2018, I requested clarification at the Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions page. "Please specify," I asked politely, "what topic ArbCom has banned me from." Five minutes later, User:Bbb23 reverted my request, with the snarky admonition in his edit summary, "If you can't read, then don't edit Wikipedia." I therefore request that ArbCom itself answer my question. What topic have you banned me from? As I understand it, my restriction is different from a topic ban. If so, please advise Cameron11598 to correct his mistake. KalHolmann (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god, I've changed the label to "editing restriction". It really doesn't make the slightest difference what it's referred to on that page as, there's no official taxonomy of what is called what. What matters is the actual behavior that you're banned from. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Premeditated Chaos, in your edit summary you say, "Let's call it an editing restriction then, it changes nothing." In that case, why change it? If my restriction is equivalent to a topic ban, ArbCom should call it a topic ban. Yet note that in ArbCom's Proposed decision, the list of Proposed remedies includes 3.3.2 Philip Cross topic banned followed immediately by 3.3.3 KalHolmann restricted. Using two separate terms is confusing. KalHolmann (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I changed it at your request because it seems to be causing you significant confusion. Hopefully some of that confusion has now abated. Again, it really does not matter what it was listed as by a clerk on an archive of editing restrictions, what is actually relevant is the wording of what you are restricted from doing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello All, just wanted to appologize for any conufsion I may have inadvertantly caused. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• User:Premeditated Chaos - "Oh for the love of god" moves you to a total loss of mature authoritive response to a simple question from a user that you are supposed to be uninvolved clerking with. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

In context, I think that choice of words was not that bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) KalHolmann's attitude throughout the majority of this case has been to push boundaries, claim persecution, and otherwise frustrate the process. For him to now claim that he doesn't know what he's restricted from because it was inadvertently labelled as a "topic ban" instead of an "editing restriction" on a list of things people are restricted from, despite the fact that the rest of the entry did not in any way alter the wording of the restriction as passed in the case, is absolutely pushing the limits of credulity, so yes, I lost my patience somewhat. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not complain because it's typical of the arrogance and condescension that Wikipedia administrators have shown towards me. See above, for instance, where User:Bbb23 told me, "If you can't read, then don't edit Wikipedia." Why single out User:Premeditated Chaos? KalHolmann (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• User:Premeditated Chaos "I lost my patience somewhat" - yes you did, you became involved and your responsibilty in this situation is to remain uninvolved. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're trying to invoke WP:INVOLVED, that policy deals with taking administrative actions during a conflict you are personally involved in. I haven't taken any administrative actions against KalHolmann. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I consider Premeditated Chaos's response in this situation to be measured and proportional to the level of ridiculousness that was occurring. She is certainly not INVOLVED here and I think both she and BU Rob13 both deserve a lot of credit for drafting one of the clearest proposed decisions from the committee in a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Via email, User:BU Rob13 has clarified the terms of ArbCom's sanction against me. He sent me what he called "a non-exhaustive list of the evidence that led to your sanction. It includes everything we would list in the finding of fact if not for the potential privacy concerns involved. After a review, I cannot provide diffs for most of this, as the content has been revision deleted and is not accessible to non-administrators." He did convey six external links, four of which were to tweets by Philip Cross's acknowledged Twitter account and the other two to an independent website that blogged about this case. I had included these, he advised, in two separate submissions of evidence "contrary to instructions to email off-wiki material to the Arbitration Committee." He also conveyed one internal link to something I posted on my user page "after we had requested its removal, still containing numerous external links to off-wiki material."

I said I understood that under the terms of my sanction, I am forbidden from posting these links at Wikipedia. However, I said I needed help in grasping the off-wiki ramifications to comply with ArbCom's terms. Would it, I asked, likewise violate my ArbCom sanction if I were to post these same links off-wiki via my Twitter account? And would it violate my ArbCom sanction if I were to retweet (RT) tweets from other accounts containing these or similar links?

He replied that ArbCom cannot restrict my off-wiki behavior directly. Nevertheless, he added, "off-wiki behavior may speak to whether a sanction remains necessary, so your appeal could be affected." In other words, ArbCom is restricting my off-wiki behavior indirectly. The bottom line, as it relates to my status as a Wikipedia editor, is that my off-wiki behavior is subject to indefinite ArbCom scrutiny.

He further replied, "You are free to do whatever you like off-wiki, provided it's legal, I suppose. You are not necessarily free to continue editing Wikipedia unrestricted if what you do off-wiki is incompatible with doing so."

I realize everyone at Wikipedia believes the terms of my ArbCom sanction are so utterly simple and crystal clear that a child could understand them. But I honestly did not appreciate the extent of ArbCom's off-wiki reach, and am grateful for BU Rob13's assistance. KalHolmann (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

cc: User:Alex Shih, User:Callanecc, User:DGG, User:Doug Weller, User:KrakatoaKatie, User:Newyorkbrad, User:Opabinia regalis, User:Premeditated Chaos, User:RickinBaltimore, User:DeltaQuad, User:Euryalus, User:Ks0stm, User:Mkdw, User:Worm That Turned

ArbCom is restricting my off-wiki behavior indirectly. The bottom line, as it relates to my status as a Wikipedia editor, is that my off-wiki behavior is subject to indefinite ArbCom scrutiny - this is right in line with Principles 4, 5, and 6 of the decision, and it applies to you and anyone else just as much as it applies to Philip Cross. Let's flip this example around: if Philip Cross appealed his TBAN six months from now but was still participating in off-wiki disputes with Mr. Galloway or other BLP subjects, we would take that behavior into account when making our decision about whether or not to lift the appeal. We can't tell him directly what to do with his Twitter, but we can affirm that certain behaviors off-wiki have consequences when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. In the same vein, we can't tell you what to do with your Twitter, but we can affirm that off-wiki behavior may have on-wiki consequences. If you're arguing that we can't take your off-wiki behavior into account if you appeal, then you're also arguing that we can't scrutinize Philip Cross' off-wiki behavior if he appeals. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Premeditated Chaos, you're drawing a false equivalence between the gravity of Philip Cross's offenses and mine. I absolutely reject that interpretation. Cross damaged Wikipedia's reputation. I did not. KalHolmann (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly attempted to subvert restrictions placed during the case designed to prevent outing and off-wiki harassment campaigns. That is quite damaging. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

No it is not. It might be personally unpleasant for Cross, but it is not 'damaging' in any way to either ENWP or Cross themselves to link to publically available information. Especially since it was a result of his own actions in using Wikipedia as a tool for his conflict with article subjects. Hence the 'false equivalence' accusation. If you want punish KalHolmann for breaking wiki-rules thats fine, but dont pretend there is any real comparison between the two, given the harm that is caused by editors who abuse the shield of WP:OUTING in order to harrass others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not making comparisons of how damaging either action was. I am stating that an editor repeatedly pushing the boundaries of rules set up to prevent outing and harassment has a chilling effect on all contributions editors make on the encyclopedia. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

So now I'm guilty of having a chilling effect on all contributions editors make on Wikipedia. This case is supposedly closed, yet the charges against me keep piling up like garbage on a city street during a sanitation workers strike. KalHolmann (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how a discussion, prompted by you, of why your past behavior was undesirable constitutes some kind of "new charges". I'll also reiterate, once again, that we are not a court and we don't lay "charges". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god, I know that ArbCom is not a court. Please stop treating me like an infant. KalHolmann (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Then don’t use courtroom language. We’re going to correct you when you misstate something about the arbitration process not because we believe you have a genuine or reasonable confusion about the process but so you cannot prompt genuine and reasonable confusion in others. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Update re Twitter. Today at 13:31 UTC @fivefilters tweeted: "#Wikipedia bans agenda-driven editor Philip Cross from British politics, but punishes the messenger too," and embedded a link to FiveFilters.org's blog on this topic. I have retweeted their tweet but shall refrain from linking to it at Wikipedia. If this violates the terms of ArbCom's indefinite restriction, please advise and I will remove my RT immediately. KalHolmann (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

...And you just violated your editing restriction by speculating the off-wiki behavior of another editor on Wikipedia. That's gonna cost you 24 hours of editing privileges. You need to take editing restrictions and sanctions seriously, refrain from violating them, and understand that they apply to you at all times and with all edits that you make on the English Wikipedia. If you're making an edit and have to ask whether or not it violates a sanction placed upon you, it's almost always in your best interest to err on the side of caution, assume that it does, and not save it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Others

Apologies if this is obvious to anyone paying attention -- I've not been reading the case. In "he is warned that his off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions to the extent it adversely impacts the English Wikipedia", does this mean that future off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions, or does it mean that any future adverse impact may lead to further sanctions even if it stems from behavior that happened before the case? MPS1992 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Context suggests the former interpretation – the intent seems to be making it clear that even off-wiki behavior can lead to sanctions if it has adverse impacts on enwp. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both -- I had suspected that to be the more likely meaning, but am now reassured that indeed it is. The sky has turned a strange color, perhaps this happens whenever an arbitration case closes. MPS1992 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Have not been following the case, but the results look pretty funky to me. There are five findings of fact related to Philip Cross, none of which should a priori lead to sanctions (in fact #5 is even clearly a positive). Why the strong language in the remedies then? #1 and #3 in the remedies are also weird, since both "sanctions" should already apply to everyone. Not saying the remedies are wrong, but it sure seems to me like the reasons for imposing those remedies are not clearly given. Banedon (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Hi, I stayed away from this case as the off-WP stuff was too dicey for me, given my history. I have a question about Finding of fact #2: Philip Cross has demonstrated a conflict of interest with respect to George Galloway and certain other individuals in the area of post-1978 British politics.. I am asking the following question carefully. Is the stated COI here: a) the public disputes on social media (per WP:BLPCOI) or b) some other external relationship that was disclosed on-WP or c) some other external relationship that was disclosed privately? I recognize it might be some combination of these. I felt like the original complaints about PC were "cry COI" and it would be useful to have a clear view of the nature of the COI that Arbcom is defining here. Based on the choice of the verb "demonstrated" I am guessing that the answer is (a) only, but I wanted to confirm. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was a) and only a). Cross's behavior crossed over into COI territory when he engaged in a sustained personalized dispute with the subject of a BLP which he was actively editing. As mentioned in some of the other FoFs, there was no indication of any collusion on Cross' part with any other person or entity, paid or otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It is probably far too late but that FoF would be much more useful for future citing if "per WP:BLPCOI" were added to the end. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

General comment

There were a lot of questionable proposals and recommendations made during the Workshop phase. Arbcom did a really good job separating the wheat from the chaff and crafting an appropriate Final decision. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree! Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's back (see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_Drmies), in the shape of a manufactured controversy over Sarah Jeong. I hope some of you will take an interest in this: they're coming out of the woodwork. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. Just look who came out of the woodwork: [21]. wumbolo ^^^ 16:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• You know she was the victim, right. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  True, during Gamergate. And now she is, unprovoked, defending a counter-harasser perceived counter-harasser, where the New York Times itself said that she was imitating harassers' tactics*. wumbolo ^^^ 18:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

* For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers. She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. [22] wumbolo ^^^ 19:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be sharing your opinion a living person is a 'harasser' or a defender of a 'harasser', and are therefore breaching WP:BLP -- please strike your comment, I would revert it but I am going off-line (and I hope someone else who watches this page, will take care of this). It's also not in any way relevant here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sourced and explained now. I thought WP:BLUE applied to BLP. Yeah, it's not really relevant, but I was just replying to Drmies. wumbolo ^^^ 19:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note The DR thread was closed as there was already an open ANI thread on the same subject: [23]. Enjoy. 18:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

:: Keep pretending that Sarah said nothing wrong. Her tweets about white people were wrong and everyone knows it. I suggest we rapidly make Sarah's article into a GA and list all of the wonderful swell things she did then we can add her offensive comments without violating that undue weight thing. JC7V-constructive zone 21:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC) sorry she was right to go after online trolls, she was doing it in self defense. JC7V-constructive zone 21:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC) The conservative media never tells the whole story. They never mentioned she was only doing it in self defense. JC7V-constructive zone 21:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The conservative media told the whole story. Both Fox News articles mention the harassment of her: [24] [25] wumbolo ^^^ 23:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what this has to do with GamerGate, but I was just watching Smerconish today and they covered her racist tweets. It's strange that our article doesn't mention this given that her racist Tweets are what she is most famous (infamous?) for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Drmies. Yes we remember Gamergate, though not especially fondly. Thanks for the notification - it doesn't hurt for additional eyes on the dispute. As a personal view this doesn't yet need Arbcom intervention, but other views welcome.

As a kind of general aside to others, this noticeboard isn't the right place to debate Sarah Jeong (or even Gamergate) content - better to post about that on the article talkpage as it keeps the discussion on one place. The edit protection issue is being discussed in the ANI thread, which also seems like a good location for that particular debate. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Editnotice_in_mobile_view (I also posted a note at Template_talk:Ds#Note_about_Ds/editnotices_in_mobile_view). Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I know the Committee has considered this problem before – the DS procedure specifically references it ("Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them."). I don't know of any good technical fix for this. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Until technical solutions become available, would adding the editing restriction as a comment at the top of the article/relevant section be a useful approach? Abecedare (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding a comment next to the text would be I think useful; on Donald Trump, all the things that shouldn't be changed without a prior consensus are noted in a comment next to the relevant text, and I reckon it helps cut down needless change and reversion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Good job with that particular marathon. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• There still remain to be many unresolved issues with this case, and hopefully they will eventually be addressed through subsequent follow-ups. Alex Shih (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Would a clerk please fix the html markup error causing everything after it to be underlined on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_politics? thx. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a clerk, but fixed. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback is appreciated in determining whether there is a consensus to make a proposed edit to the ArbCom Arab-Israeli template. The discussion is taking place on the Talk Page. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

I hope everything is fine. Thanks for serving on the committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I hope all's well with you, and although this saddens me, you gotta do what you gotta do. See you in the trenches. John from Idegon (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm also saddened to see this. Alex, I hope all is well with you, and thank you for your time on the committee. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sad to see, yes, fair play to the user for also requesting the removal of all the advanced permissions that came with the position as is correct for all limited term appointments imo. To quote him, "I am no longer able to serve my term as a member of the Arbitration Committee, and thereby resigning as an Arbitrator, CheckUser and Oversighter." Govindaharihari (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to see this, Alex. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope that is just a too busy in the real world thing, and not something bad. Thanks for serving on Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I would +1 to what John, Sarah, and Jytdog have said. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

My sentiments mirror what others have said, thank you for your service and I wish you only the best. Psst...there's a comfy foxhole with your name on it out in article mainspace. 😊 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I echo the sentiments of others here: I'm sorry to see this, and hope that whatever necessitated it is nothing serious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your service Alex. I thought you were very even-handed during the GWE case. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for the support. It was mostly to do with major changes in real world life. I will still be around to contribute. Alex Shih (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I, too, am sorry to see this. We may not have always agreed, but I've never seen you as anything but a reasonable person. All the best with whatever you are dealing with in RL. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to see this Alex Shih, Hope all is okay, Thank you for serving on the committee. –Davey2010^Talk 14:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your service. Hope all is well or, if not, that it improves. --Best wishes, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. Alex Shih (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Well, that's a pretty good reason for them to not come back. I think everyone already knew this, but posting/gravedancing it like this, just ensures that this editor stays away. 2601:5CC:101:5DEB:600E:F0BF:1344:7B8A (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This was already being discussed due to the desysop action at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Inactive_administrators/2018#September_2018 and essentially definitively provides an answer to the debate akin to a closing. If anything, it puts the discussion to rest rather than raises the possibility that this discussion will need to occur again later. Mkdw ^talk 17:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

For anyone else who doesn't immediately recall the case, it can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Winhunter. The motion, passed almost exactly 1 year ago, is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Winhunter#Winhunter: Motion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• I expressed both privately and publicly my willingness to support if we (accurately) stated the current activity privacy policy was not regularly enforced. I'm somewhat bothered that this wasn't seriously considered or discussed. This is a matter of transparency before the community. ArbCom procedures are difficult enough to understand as-is. We don't need to add an extra layer of complexity by saying one thing publicly on our procedures page while doing something else entirely in private. An editor who referenced both the procedures page and WP:AUDIT/STATS would be hopelessly confused about what was going on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Uhh BU Rob13 persumably you meants "activity policy" and not "activity privacy"? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually BU Rob13 the motion was discussed extensively before it was publicly posted, including drafts of it, and at the time you said you would support it. It was only after it was public posted, for days, that you expressed your opposition to it. The reason it feels like it was not seriously considered or discussed was because by the time you raised it, the motion already had an absolute majority, and it came out of left field. You can disagree with a majority decision, but to suggest you were not fairly heard is not accurate. A lot of due diligence and warning was given ahead of this motion coming forward. A lot. Furthermore, multiple Arbitrators already acknowledged a lot more work was required. That was said in the motion discussion and privately. Mkdw ^talk 21:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just remove the given permissions when the term ends. Why should they get lifetime advanced permissions with a single two year post? If they are voted out of that post or fail to attempt to be re-elected they should lose all permissions granted with it. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Govindaharihari: Most functionaries are appointed in a process such as WP:CUOS2018. Many became arbitrators after such appointments or have never been arbitrators at all. Former arbitrators who did not previously have the advanced tools are a minority of advanced tool holders. Only 9 of the current 42 CheckUsers and 6 of the current 44 Oversighters fit that case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those facts Rob, just 15 out of 88 then, it's 17 percent , why not have them apply for those advanced permissions as other users would have to? Govindaharihari (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
    • It's likely less than that, since there's significant overlap between former arbs that keep each tool, but less overlap between community-appointed functionaries. It's mostly because such an application process would be fairly pointless. If the community has voted that they trust these editors with those tools and they've served in good standing on the Committee for two years, then there's basically no chance they would not be appointed to the position if they applied. Meanwhile, it would deprive us of competent Oversighters and CheckUsers for at least a year until they had an opportunity to reapply, since we usually hold CU/OS appointments around this time of year, shortly before the Arbitration Committee elections. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13: - Thanks Rob, although I still oppose arbiters gaining lifetime advanced permissions with a two year elected term I really apreciate your taking the time to explain the details. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
        • @Govindaharihari: It is worth noting that functionaries are appointed (and removed) by the Arbitration Committee. We consult the community, but the community does not select functionaries directly. Theoretically, the Committee could remove advanced tools from former arbitrators if we wished to, but I just don't see any point. There would need to be some argument for why that would benefit the community for the Committee to seriously consider the idea, I'm sure. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
          • By that same token, it could just as easily be the case that former Arbs don't retain the perms, but rather that they are granted them having [made] a good case to the Arbitration Committee by contacting the mailing list or any active arbitrator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we have a 2FA requirement for functionaries? WJBscribe (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Truthfully? Because we would lose several good functionaries if we implemented one. Some functionaries are adverse to using either smartphone or desktop 2FA applications and have stated they would not adopt it unless 2FA by email was also possible. (Of course, 2FA to your Wikipedia email defeats the purpose of 2FA, since breaching the email would allow you to reset the password and verify the second factor. That's only one factor total needed to access an account.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What about hardware tokens for those who don't want it on their phones or desktop? I'm sure WMF funds could stretch to a couple of key fobs... WJBscribe (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Still not necessarily a good solution for everyone. In my work environment, for example, I can't easily access my smartphone. I edit from a secure desktop computer, but I cannot plug new hardware into it, so a token wouldn't do me any good. Obviously that's not universal but I'm sure there are other editors for whom a token isn't a viable solution. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I was picturing something more like the RSA SecurID when I saw WJBscribe's original post here. SQL^{Query me!} 22:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was thinking of. Also, does someone actually need an app on their phone - could we not set it up so that a number is texted to the designated phone, which the user can then input at the login stage for a short window of time? WJBscribe (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

In the past, I recall a functionary arguing they occasionally don't have cell service, so this would be unworkable for them. (Not saying I agree with it, but that's what was said.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if these functionaries will be so reticent if instead of it being an abstract option, it became a requirement to maintain access to the tools. I would support an RfC proposing that 2 FA be required for functionaries. WJBscribe (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that as something the community can actually hold an RfC on, as appointing and removing functionaries is within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, not the community. It seems to fit within WP:CONEXCEPT. In any event, my preferred implementation of this would be to rigorously enforce strict activity standards against functionaries who choose not to enable 2FA while being more permissive of lower activity levels from functionaries who enable it. That seems like a good first step. It makes no sense to retain a functionary who is largely inactive and refuses to secure their account. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The ArbCom can override consensus while acting within its scope and responsibilities. The Arbitration Policy however can be amended by the community. -- KTC (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That can still be hacked, someone can convince your cell provider to redirect your phone number to their own phone and then receive the text. Which, to get the private details of a top-10 website, might be worth it for a hacker. --Rschen7754 04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

SMS 2FA is considered to be INSECURE. — regards, Revi 05:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I would say that it's better than not having 2FA at all...WJBscribe (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• 2FA for functionaries should be required to safeguard the private information of the users they have access to. It should not be a choice. In any other sensible organisation where someone has access to sensitive data, opting out of security procedures because they don't like it is not an option. Frankly the arguments above are really really weak. I can concoct an unlikely scenario for every security option. As an ex sys-admin the choice is never between having increased security that a dedicated hacker can get through or have none... A dedicated hacker can get through almost anything unless you are willing to spend stupid amounts of money. The point is to make it hard for casual thieves and script kiddies. Oh and 'I can't use it at work'? Don't use it at work then. Do your job instead of a volunteer hobby. If anyone complains you arnt using your advanced tools while at work, tell them to get stuffed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I work long night shifts with extensive downtime, but I suppose I'll take your insinuation that I am so dedicated to editing Wikipedia that I am ignoring my job as a backhanded compliment of sorts. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I had read the comment more as saying that it was unreasonable to expect you to do it while at work, rather than a criticism of you for doing so... WJBscribe (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What he said, the implication being that if you did stop doing some tasks while at work, someone would complain you weren't being dedicated *enough*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

We do have some security requirements, as defined at WP:STRONGPASS, which are binding on everyone admin-level and on up, but as far as I know not actually being audited, which would have to be done by the WMF as I understand it. Requiring 2FA would basically be requiring smartphones for all functionaries, which I’m not sure is reasonable considering the WMF doesn’t pay our phone bills. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Only in death, I'm not a technically-minded person so perhaps I've misunderstood something, but whether or not I actually use any advanced tools at any place I've logged in to my account is not the point. They are attached to my account whether I am using them or not. As I understand it, 2FA is for logging in to one's account in general, not for enabling functionary equipment. If I enable 2FA and I want to log in, I have to use it whether I'm doing advanced tools things or just correcting typos. My argument isn't that I want to use CU/OS at work (I don't, because using complicated tools like CU at 430 in the morning is a recipe for disaster), it's that I want to edit Wikipedia in general in my downtime, and because of the way account permissions work, 2FA would make it far more difficult for me to do that. Same goes for other editors who may only have intermittent smartphone access, or for whom a token isn't feasible (assuming the WMF would even pony up for those). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Special:PasswordPolicies, now admins simply cannot change password to a and go to bed. (Well, does not apply to old passwords) — regards, Revi 00:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

With the exceptions of admins who were promoted to founders.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The strongest rule applies, so if founder has admin, admin rule applies. — regards, Revi 07:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

(Just commenting) This is like Steward: Steward on Meta has the same password rule as Founder on enwiki, but since stewards are required to hold adminship somewhere, they're subject to admin rule. — regards, Revi 09:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: a side point, but you shouldn't need a smartphone; there are TOTP desktop apps too. (Before someone jumps in with "but that's not as secure!!!11": perfect, good, enemies, etc.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I usually use my PC app. Doug Weller talk 08:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Interface_administrators#Alternative_proposal for ArbCom to appoint interface administrators. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

For readers, the proposal has been closed. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

For posterity, it would take a modification of WP:ARBPOL to place this within our scope and responsibilities. It is currently well outside of our scope. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Depends on what sort of information would be sought from editors applying for it as it could fit within the "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy" duty. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I sincerely hope the committee will promptly endeavor to rectify the issues with this selection process. A couple things, as you all know, are apparently not at all clear to the community:

1. That the committee pre-vetts candidates and has a prescreening consultation with the functionaries before creating what is essentially a short list of users the committee is already fairly confident in.
2. That the community consultation phase is really, really not supposed to be an RFA-style voting process.
3. That, given all of the above, unless someone presents some sort of “smoking gun” type of evidence that clearly completely disqualifies a candidate they are probably going to be appointed.

Additionally, the consultation phase clearly needs more involved clerking to keep it on track.

Clarifying and/or fixing all this next time around should not be all that complicated and I would strongly encourage the committee not to wait until the next round is imminent before addressing these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely that the community consultation period had issues, and I'm sure we'll be taking that into account next year. Worm^TT(talk) 20:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Your bullets one and three weren't my experience when I was on the committee, though I suppose things may have changed. Back in my day (shakes fist) we passed basically everyone who applied through to the community consultation phase, only screening out trolls and people without a chance in hell of getting the tools (like very new users). It was after the community consultation that we collated the opinions from the arbitrators, functionaries, and the rest of the community, and made decisions based on that. I definitely remember some people being skipped over for appointment for reasons like not having quite enough technical knowledge for CU, which I wouldn't consider a "smoking gun". I do agree very much on your second point, though, I think even one of the candidates expressed surprise to me when I told them the decision was not based on the !votes cast at the consultation the same way that it is at RfA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: About points one and two: are you saying those things should change, or are you saying that they need to be clarified? Unless I'm missing something, the first point was certainly communicated here, and the second point was implied. About point 3; I agree, in principle, but "more clerking" can mean different things to different people; I wonder if you could be a little more specific. Vanamonde (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m not saying they should change, but it seems that the community didn’t get the memo and behaved as though it was an RFA-like vote. Unfortunately people often don’t bother to read that front matter, so some sort of clearer notice to that effect and/or clerks removing all bolded votes could have served to communicate this more effectively. Any amount of clerking would be more than what we had so far as I can tell. In other arbcom proceedings clerks are there to keep things on track but seemingly not for this process. Not that I blame the clerks for that, the committee needs to ask them to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a more explicit statement upfront (pagenotice, etc). saying that this is not a vote and that support votes without rationales (and oppose votes without rationales or that are casting aspersions) will be ignored would be helpful. m:Stewards/Confirm/2018 is an example of a process that works similarly, where the community advises on the outcome but the stewards make the final decision and have liberty to ignore nonsensical opposes, opposes based on a misunderstanding of policy, irrelevant opposes, or those that obviously have some grudge. Also, and this should really go without saying, this is English Wikipedia and English Wikipedia civility policies should apply, and administrators should act accordingly. --Rschen7754 05:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As per GW above, a short list of users the committee is already fairly confident in has never been my experience. The pre-vet is to weed out the obvious duds to avoid the community having to waste their time reviewing their history, not to create a pre-formed slate of approved candidates whom the community are expected to rubber-stamp. Supports and opposed without rationales aren't helpful, but we should be offering all encouragement for anyone with any concerns—even if it's just "I have a bad feeling"—to voice them at this stage; an incompetent or rogue CU/OS can do much more damage than an incompetent or rogue admin (because there are far fewer people who can view the history and realize what's going on), so they should get at least the same level of scrutiny as do the candidates at RFA. ‑ Iridescent 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How about an edit notice? I don't always read the stuff at the top of a page myself. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest doing both: an edit notice, and a revised top-of-page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I meant as well. Doug Weller talk 05:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

So, put simply, the committee only consulted the community this year as a matter of form. Got it. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Not every candidate was successful, so it would appear otherwise. AGK ■ 20:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Not every candidate was successful is certainly not a reflection of community consultation not being simply a matter of form. Alex Shih (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Thanks for your service, Keilana! :) — 🦊 23:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• :) Thanks for your kind words, I hope I can come back to the OS team eventually. (Maybe when I finish all my crazy inpatient rotations and titrate my activity back up to not-insane-med-student levels...) Keilana (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would certainly like to see that, once things calm down! Thank you for your service. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sure you will be immediately welcome back :) Worm^TT(talk) 08:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Isn't this a step down in security? My understanding was that after the archives were leaked years ago, additional audit measures were put in place for the arbcom mailing list for any future incidents. Are those same features available in Google Groups?

I'm also disappointed that arbcom is moving to non-free software. It would be helpful to enumerate the reasons why Mailman wasn't suitable for continued usage so we can improve mailman, and move back to free software in accordance with the guiding principles. Legoktm (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

My two pence as a former member: mailman is hellish. Many valuable hours were spent discarding spam, open threads could not be tracked (remember this sprawling sticky plaster?), and the volume of traffic is simply unsuited to mailing list. Using free software certainly did not feel freeing. AGK ■ 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mailman is by far one of the least user friendly pieces of software that I have had the misfortune of using --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No meaningful spam filter, no searchable archives, no ability to have any type of CRM software/features running to ensure we aren't duplicating work or forgetting to close out particular issues. It's grossly insufficient for handling the volume of email we're receiving, both spam and legitimate. We used to spend hours just discarding spam each week. That's basically gone now. As for security, the archives have not yet moved to Google Groups, so they're locked behind literally the same security they used to be over at Mailman. I'm not going to go into details, but I believe the level of security of the archives in Google Groups will be comparable to or better than the level of security of the archives in Mailman. Note that Mailman doesn't support 2FA. Google does. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're looking for CRM type stuff, why not use OTRS? Legoktm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom still wants all of its members to see every email, and in my view, an email list (which OTRS inherently isn't, as I understand it) is the best way to accomplish that. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This is correct, not to mention that OTRS admins can technically add themselves to any queue in OTRS. While the OTRS admins sign the same confidentiality agreement that arbs do and are highly trusted, I wouldn't want ArbCom emails to be even theoretically viewable by non-arbs. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, all of these non-arb people could see the archives before the switchover, and all of these people (and many more) are able to see it after the switchover. I doubt the Committee is that worried about that particular aspect of security. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

former Google employee I'm certain that over 99% of Google employees don't have access to data on private mailing lists on Google Groups; however that would still leave room for a few hundred people to theoretically have access. In practice, Google employees won't be accessing it; any access would be audited and un-authorized access would likely be a fireable offense. Apart from the risk of legal discovery compelling access, I wouldn't be worried. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Assuming it's the same as the rest of Wikimedia mailing list, mailman 2 isn't exactly what one would call secure...., or feature rich. -- KTC (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Like the majority of 'free' software, its not great. Mailman is a fairly typical example of the bunch, lacking both useful and needful features of its commercial competition, as well as being extremely un-userfriendly. Tying one hand behind your back just to satisfy 'free' ideology is not actually a useful approach when large amounts of work needs to be done, and I assume the WMF is fronting the bill (if there is one, given how much traffic ENWP traffic drives google they could donate it and still come out ahead). As for the security concerns, thats a red herring. The mailing list leaks were LEAKS. It was not a security problem, it was people with access to the list handing it over to people who didnt. That is not a security-of-the-list problem, it really doesnt matter how its administered if the people doing it have a backup of the entire mailing list locally and decide they want to start handing it around. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What OID said. Free software != good software. If non-free software is the best option, ArbCom should be applauded for moving to it. Ideology over something like this should not overrule pragmatism. Re: OTRS, it's one of the worst programs of it's type I've ever worked with. It's easier for oversight requests than having it go to a mailing list, but I'd feel really bad for ArbCom if they had to use it to deal with the volume of mail they receive. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Most free software is not free. You end up paying for it in other ways. Namely in time and problems. Mkdw ^talk 21:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So, if arbcom-l is being changed to arbcom-en, why haven't other lists been changed to together? If there's arbcom-en and functionaries-en but clerks-l, oversight-l, and checkuser-l that creates a unnecessary inconsistency to me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

checkuser-l is global and doesn't accept posts from non-members. oversight-l is en only, but also is members only. The public oversight email follows this convention (oversight-en-wp) and goes to OTRS, not an actual list. I wasn't involved in this discussion (nor do I really care about the naming conventions), but the confusion really shouldn't confuse non-functionaries on the oversight-l and checkuser-l emails because they can't email those lists... TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Most Wikimedia mailing lists specific to a project follow a language abbreviation, e.g. meta:OTRS. As a bit of humour, this is a bit of a bike shed discussion. Anything sent to Arbcom-I is still being forwarded. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll just drop in my two cents as a global renamer who is subscribed to the global rename mailing list: I still haven't even figured out how to use Mailman correctly in the three-or-so years I've been using it! I think I've sent a couple emails here and there, but it's so confusing, difficult to use, difficult to figure out, and on-wiki documentation was anything but helpful. Perhaps I need a proper desktop email client like Thunderbird to use it, but it just seems unnecessarily frustrating that I'd have to install a program just to be able to use one mailing list (I'm not subscribed to any others). By contrast, my air cadets squadron (yes, I used to be an air cadet) used Google Groups to send emails to NCOs. I haven't used Google Groups that much, to be honest, but it looks pretty straightforward and easy to use. I may just be stupid and unable to use Mailman, but ease of use makes a difference as to whether or not I'll actually partake in discussions or if I do nothing but lurk, not out of choice, but because I don't know how to use the software. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "if the software is free, you are the product." Communications with Arbcom often involve sensitive personal matters. The idea of Google trawling through such communications in order to extract information that can be sold to advertisers isn't the cheeriest thought. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering where that "buy three pitchforks and get a torch free!" ad came from.... ;)

I'm all about free software when it fits the purpose - and I've never observed much of a correlation between quality and price - but in this case mailman just kinda sucked, and arbcom has been shopping around for an alternative on-and-off for quite some time now. Especially since just about everybody uses gmail these days, this seemed like a good path forward. It has better spam filtering, better search, and some integrated productivity tools we can make better use of to avoid having things slip through the "everybody thought somebody else did it" cracks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As OR said, everyone on ArbCom was pretty much already using Gmail to subscribe to the list. This changes nothing about accessibility of ArbCom information to Google. In reality, no human at Google is reading emails in our inboxes, obviously. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Doesn't a request need to be filed at m:SRP? --Rschen7754 05:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think last year they just granted themselves and removed themselves, which is the norm for when they do checks on wikis without CUs (which I know you know, but saying for those less familiar with meta.) I’d consider this to be similar to that sort of situation: they’re authorized to change their own rights here now that the committee has authorized them to be local CUs. I could easily be wrong here, but that’s my memory. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Last year a request was filed at SRP: [26] --Rschen7754 06:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That was also my recollection, which is why we didn't do anything at SRP, but we can certainly file an SRP request if required. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong about last year. Also seems a bit makework considering that self-granting and removal of CU/OS is very normal to the point where some stewards do it multiple times a day, but agree with Kevin it can’t hurt if they want to insist on it. I personally think that just letting them self-grant going forward is best so there’s not yet another piece of bureaucracy in the lead up that we have to remember, but ymmv. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

(I am the one being discussed here so bear that COI in mind but) my understanding was that the some sort of request(SRP or SRCU) was required where we are not doing something on our own volition, and where locals are fully tasked to do the job, and especially enwiki. — regards, Revi 06:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That has been my understanding too, and it would probably be best for transparency. --Rschen7754 06:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#CheckUser_access requests have been filed. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Another solid argument for better activity standards for admins. Before this incident this account was almost entirely inactive, but they made on token edit in April of this year and so escaped being desysopped beck in September. That had not previously used admin tools at all in 25 months. This already wasn't an admin account, our own ridiculously lax standards allowed this to happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a statistic about which type of accounts is more likely to be compromised or are we working off a gut feeling? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Neither. Working off what just actually happened. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

While I support the current activity proposal at WP:VPPRO WP:VPP, one is not a good sample size to work from. Is there a list of accounts that have been compromised at some point (whatever their current status) so that more data can be used to see if there are other common factors? Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: - Wikipedia:Former_administrators/reason/compromised. Nine in total, the accounts of Denelson83 and Esanchez7587 have both been compromised this year; the last one prior to these two was in 2012. Fish+Karate 09:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said on WP:VPPOL, this doesn't list people who recovered their accounts. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

I don't touch this area, so I don't know what's changed. For the sake of people like me, would it be possible to say "Here are the differences..."? I'm meaning in general for arbitration decisions affecting an area (as opposed to decisions affecting one or a few users), like speed of light or tree shaping or India-Pakistan, not just Israel-Palestine. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The best place to view changes is on the case page. For example you can see each iteration of this restriction here which also has a link to the motion explaining the thoughts behind it Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• May I suggest an emergency desysop of all admin-accounts that haven't been active during the past 6-8 months? One compromised admin-account per day is a bit too much, especially since the vandal who is doing it seems to have an above average knowledge about how to use the bits, enough to suggest that they may even be an ex-admin... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

As I suggested yesterday, the WMF need to run a password scanner on all admins and emergency desysop any that are reasonably crackable. I know Beeblebrox wants this to happen, and we need to put pressure on them to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if this isn't tied to the mass-guessing attempts at passwords some months ago? If that's the case, then it's not outside the realm of possibility that these accounts were compromised then and are now being used as sleeper sockpuppets. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to suggest something of this sort. Many other sites that become aware of hackers in possession of the credentials of their accounts can and do initiate a forced password reset as a matter of sealing the breach. It stops being security paranoia when the attacks are actually happening and continuing to happen. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If the vandal had access to the passwords of a number of inactive admin accounts already a few months ago, cracked them already back then and switched to better passwords, those compromised accounts would not be caught by scanning for substandard passwords, so I suggest also getting a list of inactive admin accounts that, in spite of being inactive, have replaced their passwords during the past few months... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Are logs kept of when passwords were changed? Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I would hope so, we log everything else.--v/r - TP 21:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi all - just a vague note that we're working with the WMF security team to prevent future compromises like this, and some actions have already been taken. More info to follow eventually. No mass-desysops should be necessary at this time. As always, if you want to make sure your account is secure, use a unique password for Wikimedia and enable two-factor authentication. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Killiondude was quite literally active the day immediately before. I'm starting to think that this and the mass-breach attempt in May are somehow connected. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, this goes to show that activity standards are not in fact enough. (although I strongly support strengthening them) I don't know the details of how these breaches are happening but it would be nice to know that WP:STRONGPASS was enforceable in some meaningful way other than after an account has already been compromised. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm running on the theory that Killiondude either reused a password that he used on a website that did get pwned, or he got spearphished. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see 2FA mandatory for users with advanced rights on any project. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: While that's a good idea in theory, in practice it would restrict adminship to almost exclusively wealthy tech-savvy individuals, from countries where technology and mobile data are both cheap. Based on comments from Risker and others at WP:VPP#Separate section for comments that are only about 2FA. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi ArbCom, please let us know at WP:BN if access needs to be restored on this or any of the other users. While WMF T&S / stewards may unlock upon validating that the right "person is in control of the account" I'm seeing it as up to ArbCom to determine if they are satisfying the administrator policy for security requirements at: Wikipedia:Administrators#Security. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How embarrassing. Ajraddatz helped me recover my account. My Wikipedia password was previously used with a few other sites, but has been the only one used anywhere on the web, that I can think of, for years now. I have a new, unique password now. I apologize for the inconvenience. Killiondude (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please make sure that your recovery e-mail account also has a unique password. Happy editing, and I hope you will get your bit back soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I should hope retooling Killiondude is simple and happens more or less automatically. As an aside, as a holder of several advanced permissions short of "the bit", why isn't 2FA available for me? John from Idegon (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Limitations in account recovery with the current extension. If you'd like access I can enable it for your account (and anyone else interested can leave me a message or request it on m:SRGP). -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• I not only use different passwords on different sites but also different user names on different sites, leaving no clues as to what user names I use elsewhere, and have done so for many years... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I use the exact same username everywhere, but I use different passwords. I changed my password on WM yesterday in response to this hacking attack. funplussmart (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As has been mentioned elsewhere, go to https://www.haveibeenpwned.com and check your login and password has not been scraped. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I won't enter anything on that site since it would connect whatever email-address I enter to my IP (and geolocation), and possibly also to one or more accounts on hacked websites. I would most probably also have an inbox full of spam very soon... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd imagine Troy Hunt has better things to do than to fill your inbox up with spam. -FASTILY 00:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I have never received an email from haveibeenpwned as far as I know, except to alert me that I have indeed been pwned and to take remedial action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BEANS, it might be a good idea to not publicly state the security measures you take. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• I put some notes on haveibeenpwned.com and security here. That includes information on how to use the website to check if your password has been exposed in a hack without entering your email or password into the site. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Nice. Regarding hash calculation, I've got a tool, toolforge:text2hash, which does just that :) -FASTILY 01:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Return of tools

Original Announcement

Access was restored and noted at WP:BN. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

...Yay! At least one of these accounts got access back. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 00:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The recently compromised admin accounts and the discussion about the costs of 2FA highlight the fact that we have set up a moral hazard. Admins take the chance of having a reused/ancient/weak/compromised password and/or rejecting 2FA. When they are caught out Wikipedia takes the reputational damage of having Donald Trump's penis on the main page.

After three compromised admin accounts we've passed the point where the owners of hacked accounts can be viewed merely as unfortunate victims. With the publicity, the precedent, and the known risk the point has come at which future victims need to be seen as careless rather than merely unfortunate.

As a community we need to re-align the costs & benefits. Admins should be free to make their own security decisions, but they should bear some of the downside when they get it wrong. I'm coming to the view that admins who have lost control of their accounts should not be automatically re-sysopped after demonstrating that they have recovered their account, but that they ought to go through another RFA in which the value/cost of their adminship can be assessed by the community. This would be a fair rebalancing of the risk. Cabayi (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I'm not sure about that. How would someone demonstrate to the masses at RFA (or other process, see later) that their security has improved? The only way I can think do demonstrate this to anybody would involve sharing material of the sort that has been revdelled from this very discussion per WP:BEANS, and while it could be shared in private with some trusted users this is exactly what we have now with arbcom and/or crats being those trusted users. If there was an RFA then there are two options, either a general RFA at which the security issues might play a very minor role in the discussion effectively becoming a mandatory reconfirmation RFA (which per current policy only arbcom can require and only following specific on-wiki actions), the other alternative is a discussion that focuses solely on security issues which will need significant moderation to keep on topic and runs a significant risk of (accidental) personal/WP:BEANS information disclosure and/or outing issues. I don't see either as especially desirable. The only other option I can think of is requiring the admin to undergo a security practice audit, but (a) many admins could not afford to pay for such (and asking them to would be unreasonable), may not be possible for practical reasons for some admins (e.g. those living in remote locations and/or under restrictive regimes) and (c) you're back to the trusted people situation we have now. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thryduulf I'm not arguing for audits. I'm quite happy to trust anyone who's endured an RFA to have good intentions for the project. If you tell me that your account security is adequate, I'm not going to demand proof. I don't care whether you use an XKCD style passphrase, a password manager, or 2FA.

However, if an admin's account has been compromised, and their judgement of what is secure runs short of the community's expectations, then a restoration of access ought not to be the procedural norm. There needs to be at least just the risk of losing the bit to act as an incentive to keep their privileged account safe. Cabayi (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. If procedural restoration is not the norm then then either (1) no admin gets the bits back ever, or there needs to be some way for the admin to either (2) assure one of (a) a trusted user, (b) a group of trusted users, or (c) the community that their security has improved; or (3) prove, beyond a simple assurance, that their security has improved. You say you don't want (3) so you must want either (1) or (2). You don't sound like you intend (1), and we currently have (2b), so what are you actually proposing? Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thryduulf, 2b plus (4) Have they made sufficient judicious use of the tools prior to the event to justify the risk of returning the tools? The tools should have been kept safe before the event, there's little point handing them back just to lay around unused or under-used again. Cabayi (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh hold on. Now you're adding a completely new requirement to restoring tools that has nothing to do at all with a possible account compromise. There are tons of examples of administrator activities that don't use any of the logged tools, and it is almost impossible to count those actions (e.g., admins saying "no sanction" at WP:AE). And since there is not any standard at all for level of activity aside from 1 logged action/edit a year, that in itself would be "sufficient" use. Risker (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There's also a requirement to keep the tools safe - that's 100% about an account compromise. I'm not arguing for any automatic or default action one way or the other, merely that there should be a discussion. Cabayi (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

One could argue that failing to secure the tools is misuse of the tools. DuncanHill (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but we aren't dealing with admins emailing their passwords around or leaving their accounts logged in on public computers, we're talking about dedicated efforts to compromise accounts that are believed to be secure. We can take action to reduce security vulnerabilities without resorting to blaming the victims. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to apportion blame. I'm saying that the community should take a view on whether the risks in that individual continuing to hold the tools outweighs the benefit. Of the three cases that have appeared here recently the two accounts which have been permanently locked are coincidentally the two which have barely troubled the wiki with their efforts in the longest while. Cabayi (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting should actually change in practice? If you think the community should take a view then you need to answer how you propose they express that view and what information they will use to decide whether they have or have not improved their security. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thryduulf you're asking me to repeat myself...

• "how you propose they express that view" - Exactly what I proposed in my first post - "that they ought to go through another RFA in which the value/cost of their adminship can be assessed by the community."
• "to decide whether they have or have not improved their security" - you keep saying that is the issue I'm focussed on. It's not. That is very much a question about stable doors & bolted horses. The issue is "that the community should take a view on whether the risks in that individual continuing to hold the tools outweighs the benefit." Cabayi (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In which case I completely oppose your attempt to introduce mandatory reconfirmation RFAs. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I'd long since assumed that was your stance. So you're happy with the position that administrators are required to keep the tools safe and if they don't, and they're not making much use of the tools, then... no penalty, no review, nothing? Please explain. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to tighten activity requirements (including making RFA necessary after all inactivity desysops) then make a specific proposal about tightening activity requirements (or comment on one of the existing ones) and I will evaluate your proposal in that light (and quite possibly support it). If you want to judge by some other metric whether admins are making "good use" of the tools then make a specific proposal about that, explicitly including what you mean by "good use" and how you propose to conduct the discussions, and I will evaluate that in good faith. However your current proposal is vague, unclear in its motives (is it about security? activity levels? "good use" of tools? something else?) and feels punitive rather than preventative (per Ajraddatz). There is no evidence you have presented or I have seen elsewhere that activity levels correlate with account security. So the only review I feel justified is exactly that which currently happens - i.e. those users who can assure the WMF/Arbcom that they are back in control of their account and have taken steps to improve their security get the tools back, while those who can't (or don't) do not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. I'll admit that I have taken it as axiomatic that an admin who regularly uses the tools is more likely to notice that they've been hijacked than an inactive admin, and that that correlates to a security risk. (more via email) Cabayi (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "noticing" is the issue. Killiondude was editing 13 hours prior to being hijacked. There are solutions to be had regarding security and there are solutions around inactivity, but I believe that conflating the two risks that neither will be properly dealt with. Worm^TT(talk) 12:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Last time I checked the 2FA implementation on Wikipedia was crap. If a developer reads this and wants to talk with me about how to do a better implementation, I’d be happy to help. Security is not an easy fix, even for well-funded enterprises. Jehochman ^Talk 08:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Jehochman, I doubt the WMF Security team is watching this page, so please follow the steps at mw:Reporting security bugs to alert them. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Jehochman on this. There are quite a few problems with ease of use. Among these are: the difficulty of registering new devices, the difficulty of invalidating existing one-time codes, the difficulty of obtaining additional one-time codes, the absence of a well-supported reset procedure in the event of loss of the device and the one-time codes, and the inability to make routine edits without 2FA such that 2FA is only required when using admin tools. I have used 2FA systems at work and for banking for years, fwiw. I don't think the 2FA mechanism as implemented is as secure as is widely believed, either, but I will refrain from enumerating the details here pursuant to WP:BEANS. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@UninvitedCompany: for the "routine edits without 2FA" component you may be interested in meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Admins and patrollers/Allow De-Privileged logons to webui. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Account is currently locked and desysoped. @BU Rob13:, Thank you for the clarification that this is due to private information - so there won't be much to discuss at this point. Best luck on getting your account recovered Orangemike. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Well that sucks. Seeing that he's one of the more productive admins to have been recently compromised, I hope he gets his account back.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK now; any evidence of any evil being done in my name? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And have my admin bit, etc. been restored? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Mike, we're voting on it right now. Should be tomorrow at the latest. :-) Katie^talk 02:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: thanks for the note, please just drop us a note at WP:BN when decided, we don't require any 24-hour delays once ArbCom approves. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Note that the very first article edits Waenceslaus made after his unblock were to create a new article on a "supercentenarian", Maria Roszak . Is anybody here of the opinion that this does somehow not violate his topic ban on "longevity"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's a community sanction, not an Arbcom one - and it's missing the magic "broadly construed" words - but personally, yes, I would agree that the creation of that article is a violation of that topic ban. Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Supercenturians are the core topic of longevity. I don't know the history or the editor but if banned from longevity and creating a page on a 110+ year old, its a clear violation. Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

They were topic-banned from the subject of longevity (which they were/are pretty much a SPA on) in 2015 for disruption. They then socked to get around the topic-ban and were blocked indefinitely. Now, they've been unblocked and have immediately violated the topic ban again. I think the way forward is fairly clear here. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked for one week for violation of the topic ban, and posted a note on ANI. I have also deleted the article in question under WP:CSD#G5 as being created by a (topic) banned user in violation of their (topic) ban. -- KTC (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Strong behavioral evidence suggests socking using User:A massive zebra after I AfD'd a page created by User:Wenzeslaus M.D. that User:Waenceslaus edited and was warned over (see their talkpage). Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Very, very suspicious. Different countries, though from the same continent. The UA's are identical, though it is a common enough one. Courcelles (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Polish_supercentenarians_(3rd_nomination) Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Embarrassing action from the committee Govindaharihari (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • How so? The user was topic-banned using the proper processes, indeffed using the proper processes for that, and successfully appealed using the proper process again... Seems everyone involved in the related discussions did everything properly - how is any of that embarrassing? Dax Bane 21:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I'll decline to discuss, a quick look at your edit history screams sock. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, since the accusation has been made... I hereby authorize any CheckUser to check my account confirming (or denying) the above claim without regard to any policy that would otherwise prevent them from doing so Dax Bane 21:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Govindaharihari: unsupported allegations of sockpuppetry constitute a personal attack - strike and apologise to Dax Bane please. Nick (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I am so sorry Dax_Bane. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It's fine - amusing, actually. I've been accused of being worse :) Dax Bane 21:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as embarrassing for anyone but the disruptive user involved. Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

unblocking a disruptive user via email and them lasting one edit is a bit embarrasing imo . Govindaharihari (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the zebra account is a different person, but a member of the 110 forum along with the first user. Given zebra has never been to AfD before and has not edited for 6 years, they got the idea to come there asking for a topic ban of me from somewhere else. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Why hasn't Arbcom re-banned Waenceslaus? GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be growing concensus for a community ban. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You can't "re-banned" someone who wasn't banned in the first place. It was a CU indef block for sockpuppetry. The community discussion is ongoing as you are aware. -- KTC (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Just happened across this. Waenceslaus has been banned by the community. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

 Done sysop access has been restored to Orangemike. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And another account returns to the owner's hands! Yay! ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 17:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

And of course it all had to happen while I was out sick and could have been doing my mop-and-bucket duty. Alas, such is life! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Allow me to thank you all for your work and final motion on this troubling case. Please permit me to again urge you to in some way recognize the crucial role of Administrator TNT who filed the original indefinite block and filed the case, and who took considerable flack for it. Thanks again, Jusdafax (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Seeing the crossed out signature makes me utterly miserable💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement