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

Original announcement

• Now, the community shall restore his administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  I highly doubt so, see Floq's RfA being a prime example of how divisive any involvement with WP:FRAM can be, and now that Fram has been desysop-ed by the committee, the chances for the community to not trust the judgement of their elected body are slim, especially after so many of us demanded the oversight of the case to be handed down to the committee, at the very least. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to Arbcom for dealing with this very difficult case. I doubt that there's much fun to be had being an arbitrator at any time, but I think this case was particularly harrowing, and for you to work through the issues with such diligence was far more than we can expect of volunteers. I particularly want to thank Gorilla Warfare, Worm That Turned, SilkTork, Joe Roe and Mkdw for their engagement with the community during the process.-gadfium 19:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm glad the WMF and the Arbitration Committee has come to a peaceful solution in the end. This incident is finally over. Hopefully things will improve from here on. INeedSupport ^:V 19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure they have, I'm not sure it is and I'm not sure they will. :( Leaky caldron (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Our best hope is for everyone to remain calm and judge the RFA on it’s merits. I prefer to look at this case as glass half full. Fram was unbanned and now the community gets to decide. Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  You think some of the less informed in the community will look past a WMF ban and Arbcom desysop without a strong statement from Arb that it was wrong? Seems naive. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  I think that when a plurality of more informed members support and explain why, the others will see the logic. This desysop isn't damaging in my opinion because the only verifiable reason given was that Fram once said "Fuck ArbCom". I think a lot of people have felt that way at one time or another. It all depends upon how Fram comes across in the questions and his interaction with other editors. If he does a good job, I think he can pass. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• On one hand I guess this is what we asked for, but FFS this is a stupid precedence to be set. That you can be desysopped but not provided the evidence as to why and expected to improve is asinine to me. Here's hoping that the RFA isn't the shitfest waste of time that some people expect it to be. Valeince (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Very shameful. This is a new low for Arbcom. I will not thank the arbitrators for their “hard work” on this case, except those voting against the desysop. This was lazy at best, as some of the arbs didn’t bother to look at any of the evidence until after the PD was posted. These Arbs are going to be remembered, and not in a good way. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  I think you are being too harsh. This case started very much on the wrong foot and despite that they got it at least half right and the desysop only passed by a narrow margin. They're humans and are allowed to make mistakes. It's now in the community's hands and we have the chance to fix it if we want to. All will be best served if we come together and try to create a less toxic atmosphere (despite the serious bumbling that brought about this case and created a very toxic situation). Jehochman ^Talk 21:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks from me for handling this complex and difficult case, as well as for the Committee's decisive intervention during the WP:FRAM mess which led to a breakthrough. I imagine that it caused considerable stress for all the Committee members, and I'm grateful once again that people volunteer for this role. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm trying very hard to do as Jehochman says. And I do want to thank the (remaining) Arbs for working through what was clearly an incredibly difficult set of conditions. I mean that. But I am nonetheless unhappy with the final product. (And the workshop contained some spot-on suggestions from Newyorkbrad, so nobody can say that the Committee really needed to write the final decision in the way that they did.) But look at the findings of fact in the final decision. In FoF 6, you say: "In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not constitute misuse of administrative tools." And then you desysop nonetheless. OK, giving the benefit of the doubt, I recognize that there are multiple FoFs about Fram's conduct, based on different subsets of the evidence, and what I just quoted was from the one about community evidence. Maybe the tools weren't misused, but the demeanor of how Fram interacted with other users was the basis of the desysop. FoFs 7 and 8 maybe provide some documentation of that. But FoF 12, which is ultimately the rationale for the desysop, is very vague about the exact reasons, just some sort of evidence that "accumulated" and mostly "cannot be disclosed to either Fram or the community". Now we know from FoF 9 that there "was no evidence of off-wiki misconduct in either the Office provided case materials, or the community provided evidence", so we know that all of Fram's conduct that led to the desysop can be found in publicly accessible diffs. So that leaves us with 2 diffs in FoF 7, which hardly look like a sufficient justification, combined with some secret "accumulation" of complaints about how other editors felt.

It's not really possible for the community at large to look at that and understand the reasons for the desysop. And that matters. There will apparently be an RfA, and editors discuss above how it might turn out. And as noted, there will be a lot of editors who are not familiar with all the details, but who will see that ArbCom desysoped for some reason, and who are likely to oppose based on that. I'm pessimistic about the ability of "more informed members" to provide guidance, because we don't really know the reasons either, and can only speculate″ and opine. This isn't about how the RfA turns out. It's about fairness. And the final decision is going to make fairness nearly impossible. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There will be an RFA and that may resolve it. If not, a new ArbCom will be elected shortly and then Fram can appeal the decision based on the fact that this screwy decision poisoned the well at his RFA. There's a clear series of steps going forward, and will be helpful to all, including Fram, if we try to be optimistic (rather than negative, which can become toxic, and discourage participation at RFA). Jehochman ^Talk 23:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I used to be optimistic that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump. It's hard to predict the outcome. So I'm disinclined to be optimistic here, as much as I would like to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

This is kind of an interesting hypothetical... I'm not really sure what an appeal of a desysop vote (or a "decline to resysop" vote..) would really result in—I don't think anyone has ever been resysopped via appeal to the Committee; usually that decision is explicitly left to the community at RfA. But then again, this is hardly comparable to any situation we've been in before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Coffee was resysoped by motion in 2009, but that was a decade ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Note though that the arbitration committee explicitly gave the option for Coffee to apply to the committee to have administrative privileges restored. isaacl (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

GW, if Fram is voted down because of things people find in the record, so be it. If he fails to pass because of opposes that say, in effect, “per ArbCom”, I think he’d have grounds to appeal. This was a weird case because 70 pages of evidence could not be shared. ArbCom suggested that RFA could make an independent determination. In the alternative, I suppose bureaucrats could choose to discount any such “per ArbCom” votes (because ArbCom never disclosed the evidence, and the proceeding was utterly irregular and outside policy). Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That seems to imply that the bureaucrats don't trust Arbcom, and consider it appropriate to encourage other editors to do the same. I note in particular finding of fact 12 where ArbCom concluded unanimously that "Fram's conduct was not consistent with WP:ADMINCOND" on the basis of the public and private evidence available to them. In my view, it would be entirely legitimate for editors to vote against returning the admin tools on that basis, and I intend to do so if an RfA eventuates in the near term. Other editors are, of course, very welcome to take other views, but I don't think that we should encourage ArbCom findings to be dismissed. The situation with the WMF's evidence is unsatisfactory for a bunch of reasons, but I trust the Committee to have evaluated it sensibly and they state it wasn't the only basis for their decision here. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not at all what I was thinking. You are entitled to your opinion, and I will follow my conscience. Now is not the time to re-argue the case. Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

So in this hypothetical scenario: the ArbCom case ends with Fram needing to go to RfA to get adminship again, Fram decides to go through RfA, they do not pass, and then after having gone through the RfA they appeal the decision in which the ArbCom decided they must go through RfA to regain adminship? And ArbCom decides to reverse the decision that Fram must go to RfA to regain adminship after they've already done so, thus overriding the community decision at RfA, based on the fact that too many people referred to the ArbCom's concerns about Fram's behavior in private evidence? I guess I can't really see the logic in this, but I also suppose this can all just wait until if that hypothetical becomes reality. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

My view is that a future iteration of ArbCom would be well within their rights to review what took place here and overturn any and all aspects of this, depending on what the review uncovers. This would apply regardless of whether an RfA is run or not. Some people will (like Nick-D) trust ArbCom to have made the right decision. I am not so sure about that (having been an arbitrator, I know a committee can collectively reach the wrong decision). Whether there would need to be a public explanation of why the decision was overturned (if it was) is another matter! A complicating factor would be the presence between years of arbitrators that participated in the case (unless those whose terms are expiring stand again, there will be four that carry over to next year: you (GW), AGK, Joe Roe, and Mkdw). Carcharoth (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I see a problem with a future appeal to ArbCom. Some of the Arbs said in this case that they would reject any case request that would ask to relitigate this case. That was in the context of Fram being accused by someone else of having done the same kinds of behavior as before, after a successful RfA, and it was intended to reaffirm that the community's decision in the RfA would be respected by ArbCom. But if ArbCom is going to respect an RfA that is successful, can they comfortably override the community if the RfA is unsuccessful? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: ...(having been an arbitrator, I know a committee can collectively reach the wrong decision). It is worth noting too, they can also collectively reach the right decision. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: You presumably also know, as a former arbitrator, that any decision would have been the 'wrong' one to somebody. I have no patience for those going around lauding arbs they agreed with on particular points and threatening those they didn't. We reached this decision collectively, as a committee. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe, who, till date, has lauded some arbitrators and threatened others? This venue is not the best choice for you to engage in overblown rhetoric. ∯WBG^converse 10:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

[1] isaacl (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, what’s the threat? That people are going to remember which of these arbs made a bad call? I hope people do. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I won't have made that post but there's nothing threatening in it. Unless and until the arbitrators feel entitled to be thanked for their deliberations or be remembered in a good way, both of which are quite concerning.∯WBG^converse 17:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Joe Roe I fully understand that all of the committee votes to close, even those who did vote against the desysopping. I fully agree that you are collectively accountable for that decision. --Dirk Beetstra ^T<C 14:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Are you saying that if somebody on the committee was really against the desysop, he/she could have refused to vote to close? How would that have worked? Not trying to start an argument here, I'm genuinely curious.—Chowbok ☠ 00:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chowbok: Well, there were at some point 3 oppose to close !votes. That would have made it impossible to get a net 4 closes. That simply means that there is no consensus to close. How would that have worked? I don't know. Possible a longer drawn out dramah? They could also just have refused to support the close, in which case that would have been a voice of protest, but we would have gotten to a close at least. To me, a support to close is an endorsement of the result of the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra and Chowbok: In my experience the arbitrators' voting to close a case is just an administrative step meaning that all the drafting and voting is finished so it's time to wrap the case up. I voted to close plenty of cases in which I disagreed with all or part of the decision, but once I've made my arguments and the other arbitrators disagreed, it was time to move on. Voting to close is definitely not an endorsement of the decision, and I'm sure that no one would want to move to a system in which, if the vote on a decision was 6-to-3, the minority would permanently oppose closing and the decision would never take effect. (To invoke the inevitable if flawed U.S. Supreme Court comparison, the Justices dissenting from a 5-4 decision don't refuse to show up for work to prevent the decision from being released, which in theory they could do since a statutory quorum for the Supreme Court is six.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chowbok and Newyorkbrad: I know, it would be unprecedented. I agree with the sentiment that most Arbs would see it as 'I have nothing more to add, lets wrap up the case'. But if an arb would have more to add, if the arb would feel strong that there is something 'not right', they would hence not vote that way. If there were arbs that were feeling strongly that something was just 'not right' (in line with some of the feelings of the community ...) they could just keep the case open. Those that seemingly disagreed with this outcome here did apparently not feel that way, 'endorsing' the outcome even if they disagreed.

I do feel that disappointment in Arb here now, in my opinion ArbCom should be the final stop to disruption where the community cannot stop the disruption, here ArbCom seems to have thrown a disrupted state at the community without clear indication: 'now you figure it out what you want to do'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagreed with the outcome, but I noted in my close vote that I had made my points and the other arbs had decided to still support the desysop. The other two oppose votes had already switched to support (they were holdovers to stop the case from being prematurely closed when it was first suggested). Though I may disagree with my colleagues, I acknowledge that as a Committee we will not always be unanimous, and that sometimes my opinions are not shared. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks from me too, per NickD. This can't have been easy, and it's unfortunate that the politics with T&S meant it had to be handled in this bizarre way, with the anonymous evidence, but that was our of ArbCom's hands. I hope that will not be repeated and that we quickly move to an understanding on how ArbCom and T&S talk to each other. Although the WMF handled it badly, the saga also brought out the worst in a lot of others too. I obviously haven't seen the evidence the committee saw, but I trust that they used their skill and judgement in concluding the way they did. I would recommend against any RFA for at least six months, to allow the dust to settle and also for Fram to give us an exemplary record on which to judge him as we move onwards.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• And from me, though I associate myself with the comments of Tryptofish, with whom I have many times disagreed over the years, but never found lacking in clue. Reliance on secret evidence that somehow is actually public does nothing to restore confidence in ArbCom. It is difficult to see how they will have sufficient community standing to lead in a RFC on how such evidence should be used, as we are led to believe will happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I wish I could ask those who engineered the start of this massive waste of time, given the subsequent mess, resignations, and nearly complete reversal of decision, if it was worth it. This is my most earnest wish. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks from me. A very tough ask, and plenty of detractors. Given the imperfect nature of this whole business (largely caused by T&S not staying in their lane) I think the outcome is acceptable. I look forward to Fram submitting a RfA for re-sysop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
• I just wanted to say thanks to every single Arbcom member who dealt with this mess and tried to resolve it the best they could - WMF created one huge mess and essentially left it for Arbcom to deal with/fix so I do thank them for their hard work in trying to resolve and fix this,

I will just add for the record I'm not at all happy with the desysop but I've said all of what I wanted to say on the PD page - IMHO all of WMFs actions should've been reversed, That's all I'll say on that. –Davey2010^Talk 08:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• While I understand concerns that some people will vote oppose because ArbCom did not resysop Fram, I also understand concerns that some people will vote support because they disagree with the Foundation banning anyone on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if these two groups will balance each other out, so what we are left with is an RfA based purely on Fram, but I hope so. It's also worth saying that Fram preferred the option of going to a RfA than having to make a pledge to ArbCom to abide by Admincond. SilkTork (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope bureaucrats will discount both types of irrational votes: protest votes (“to hell with WMF”) and blind followers (“all hail ArbCom”). The votes that matter most are those based on the merits, where the voter ties their opinion to their own analysis of the facts. Jehochman ^Talk 10:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

He'd probably be better off getting his bits back by being elected to ArbCom. More likely a successful result.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be...awkward. Jehochman ^Talk 11:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The facts are clear that as an administrator Fram has caused a lot more heat than light (the last thing we want from our administrators, and his immediate attempt to apply for admin will again apply further heat and disruption) and suggestions from experienced contributors than he should run for arbcom just shows how broken the neutrality of the community is and explains exactly why the foundation felt it was time to step in and assist. Arbcom has supported the removal of his advanced permissions and it it time for Fram to take a back seat and reduce disruption of the project. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• @SilkTork: my reading of what transpired between you and Fram on Fram's meta talk page is different to yours. People can read for themselves the very long back-and-forth that took place at meta:User talk:Fram#Looking for a solution, or they can skip to the final section at meta:User talk:Fram#Areas of concern where I believe you made your 'pledge' offer. Fram's reply to that is here. If you look carefully at what Fram is saying, it is clear that he has become frustrated with the whole process, the mis-steps being taken at the proposed decision page, and the fact that Fram was not really being allowed to take part in the case (Fram was only later unblocked to take part right at the end of the case). Now, you and Fram did (sort of) reconcile at the very end of that section, but Fram's frustration was understandable there. What is not acceptable is the way you (SilkTork), the one in a position of power here, remember, reacted and have since been portraying Fram's reaction ("he refused to engage and didn't want to make a pledge"). That is misleading in so many ways. My reading of it is that Fram got frustrated with the discussion, then calmed down later. And that Fram is perfectly willing to make a pledge of that nature, but to the community, not to a body (ArbCom) that while they had done well to take control back (of sorts) from T&S, were still not handling the case very well. And the comment that you (SilkTork) made that Fram "preferred the option of going to a RfA" is simply wrong. If you had been following what Fram said, you can see that he clearly stated here that "I would prefer the crats to deal with it. An RfA would be a second choice only, but then as soon as possible.". Maybe you could correct what you have said above, SilkTork? Carcharoth (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Is the T&S dossier included in the ArbCom-L archives now? If not, will it be made available to the 2020 committee if they are required to revisit this case? –xeno^talk 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, the document is in our archives and therefore will be available to any future arbitrators added to the mailing list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  “Any information kept long enough eventually leaks.” —Hochman’s Law. Jehochman ^Talk 17:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  What if Fram is elected to the committee? –xeno^talk 11:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Awkward! 🍿 ArbCom, if you are smart, you will delete that report now that the case is closed. If it's needed in the future you can request it again from T&S. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• At the very least, if an RFA is opened for Fram, I hope we will be informed of it. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

*sigh* All RFAs are posted as a watchlist notice, why would this be any different? –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Perfecto. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• As someone who has been asking the simple, fundamental question, over and over again, as to whether or not there was "harassment", I find the relevant FoF to be pathetic. "Hounding", per your own invocation of enwiki policy, is the practice of following users around in order to cause "irritation, annoyance, or distress", causing "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason". This is a simple concept. Following somebody around just to troll them, or give them a hard time, or to disrupt the project, is harassment, of course, otherwise known as "hounding". Very simple. Yet, in spite of this clear-cut definition, the committee's "finding of fact" was that Fram engaged in "borderline harassment", because he was "excessively highlighting their failures". Strange. If Fram was following users for no reason, then that's harassment. Apparently that's not what the evidence showed, because you could not say that he engaged in harassment, which many people have accusing him of solely based on the existence of the ban for harassment. If Fram was following users because they were problematic, and the issue was that he was "excessively highlighting their failures", then that's not "hounding", that's, presumably, working in the best interest of the project but being too uncivil about it. Sure, you could call that 'borderline harassment' in an informal sense, and I'm sure a user with connections would complain to their friends in the office that they're being harassed, but it really isn't harassment as defined by our standards, at all, is it? And look at the atrocious "harassment" section on the evidence page. Fram harassed Ymblanter? Based on that out of context quote in which Fram is actually paraphrasing an inappropriate comment made by Ymblanter. Fram harassed Gatoclass? Based on those diffs, Fram objected to Gatoclass making an inappropriate threat, then objected to Gatoclass personally attacking him, then mistakenly criticized Gatoclass of changing an article to match a DYK hook, and struck his comment once his mistake was pointed out. Then of course we have the harassment of Laura Hale, based on his...appropriately filing complaints about legitimate problems in the appropriate forum? Sigh. You guys have nothing. You're just covering for the WMF. That's what this looks like. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Now is probably the wrong time, but at some future point it would be entirely appropriate to ask ArbCom for clarification on these points. They are reasonable people and would I am sure be quite willing to clarify those aspects of the case if well-argued points were put forward to show that clarification is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  I understand why there is confusion, and will happily offer my point of view. Harassment is a difficult term as it covers everything from hounding on-wiki to turning up unexpectedly at someone's house. The former may be regarded as harassment, while the latter would likely be a breach of the law. Fram was never anywhere near the latter. However, he did follow individuals around on wiki, causing "irritation, annoyance, or distress" and "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally" - You'll note I left off the "for no constructive reason".
  In my view, there was always a constructive reason - I do not believe Fram acted in malice. However, what the committee focussed on was "excessively highlighting their failures" - that's where we pushed into the harassment territory - and why I supported the "borderline harassment" term. Civility was a factor, but so were the highlighting of minutae, the excessive focus on little details, the regular issues raised. This happened to multiple different users. I won't go into the community evidence, as I have said enough on that on the workshop - but there is more to the case than just what we were provided with by the community. We were hamstrung by the WMF, but I do not believe we were covering for them. Worm^TT(talk) 10:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Is it possible that the committee (whose members differ on the interpretation of things such as WP:ADMINCOND and the degree to which Fram's behaviour improved after the conduct warning) disagree on the extent to which this is 'harassment'? More importantly, are committee members going beyond their remit in interpreting Wikipedia policies? The community (that wrote the policies and guidelines) might not agree with how you (ArbCom) are interpreting the policies. Does excessively highlighting someone's failures count as harassment under policies as they stood at the time (and even now)? It is nearly impossible to discuss these things in a meaningful way without examples. Where is the line drawn between excessive and not excessive? Who draws that line? And how is Fram supposed to know in future what is excessive and what is not excessive? Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  I wouldn't like to talk to my colleagues opinions, but reading their comments on the materials provided by T&S in the proposed decision does answer a lot of your questions. I do believe that excessively highlighting failure counts as harassment, by the very definition of "excessively". But you are right, it is near impossible to discuss this in any meaningful way without examples, and I cannot give them. I've made my feeling clear how that should have affected the decision but the case is done. I'm happy to discuss further at my talk page, but I don't think prolonging discussion here is particularly helpful. Worm^TT(talk) 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Feel free to use communication between Fram and me as an example if needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Carcharoth: These are great questions and I believe we touched on them in the decision. FoF 4 attempted to find the definition of harassment in enwiki and policy and didn't find one. Instead, we found some related but not exactly equivalent terms. But "harassment" is mentioned (but not defined) in the ToU and this was the grounds given for Fram's ban. Presumably, T&S have another yet another definition, but we don't know what that is. All this made it difficult to answer the question of whether Fram "harassed" anyone and therefore whether T&S' grounds for the ban was valid. If you read the PD there was a range of views on this point and I think that is a major reason that ban was unanimously overturned.

  If we're going to show the WMF that we can deal with their concerns about 'community health' and ToU-enforcement locally, we as a project need to put some serious effort into developing a working definition and policy around harassment.

  However, it's important to point out that we didn't desysop Fram for harassment. We did so because they failed to meet local enwiki policy (specifically WP:ADMINCOND). – Joe (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  Herein lies a core issue I have with this whole thing. Put yourself in my shoes as a largely uninvolved person trying to decide if I should vote in Fram's upcoming RFA. If what you say is true and has not substantially improved since the conduct warning, I would like to know about it to make an informed vote. Right now my sense of fairness obliges me to give Fram the benefit of any doubt, as he has been mistreated so badly and there isn't convincing evidence to the contrary, but I'd like to actually know what I'm about to vote for. Magisch ^{talk to me} 10:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  My preference was for a "no-fault" RfA - I know it's almost impossible, but try to look at Fram's admin rights as if he were choosing to run a reconfirmation RfA - allowing the community to show what reasons they have for and against him being an admin. None of this cloak and dagger nonsense. Worm^TT(talk) 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to thank the Arbitration Committee for all its hard work on this case. We know both the case and situation were unusual, and we appreciate Arbcom's dedication and approaching this with thought and nuance. We also appreciate Arbcom recognizing that it is permitted to hear and adjudicate private cases when such a case type is necessary.

The Wikimedia Foundation looks forward to the coming RFC on the topic of "how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future". We also invite community members to participate in the upcoming community consultation on the topic of partial and temporary office actions, which will be launching next Monday on Meta. Best regards --Jan (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jan (WMF): Will Fram be receiving an apology? WJBscribe (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in a RfC on the topic of how the WMF handles blatant conflicts of interest.—Chowbok ☠ 19:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Mildly, the WMF's actions in this case have been a net negative for everyone including Fram, the complainants, the community and Arbcom. Rather than offering thanks after the fact, perhaps the WMF might spend a little more time reflecting on What could have been done differently. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but not only have I not seen any sort of apology - but I haven't seen any indication that either T&S or the WMF intend to do anything differently. If they have, please link me up. — Ched (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

🦗 🦗 🦗 *crickets* Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

^^^ This. They were quick enough to block someone outside of process, going out of scope, stomping on the community, where is the remorse? The vow to do better? The statement that recognizes how incredibly poorly they acted? The acknowledgement of the negative effect on Wikipedia? The half hearted non-apology apology, even? KillerChihuahua 13:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I have an institutional memory covering more than 10 years, and I can not recollect WMF screwing up and later apologizing for screwing up. Not a single time coming to my memory. They could reverse the decision without apologizing, or the person who made the decision can change the job, and then the decision could die by itself, but I do not remember any apologies beyond the small talk.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There are lots of situations around here where an apology would help but none is on offer. So that's not unusual in a Wikipedia context not just with the foundation. That said while my respect for several WMF staffers went up during this incident - for instance I went from being neutral to positive about Katherine for the ways she rapidly did apologize and then attempt to fix her actions that made things worse at first - Jan was not one of those staffers. If he's not prepared to accept responsibility for his actions in creating and then making this situation worse, fair enough, but then the Foundation should send along a different messenger who would have credibility with the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more willing to believe this was a one-off "oopsie we fucked up moment", Jan, if you didn't have a history of attempting to bypass local control of things (see also superprotect on de.wp) and if your behaviour during this whole situation wasn't so obstructive as to make a cover-up seem obvious, especially in light of the findings-of-fact in the ArbCom case. I earnestly believe you should resign your position in favour of someone who is willing to talk to the communities rather than at them. You have lost all credibility with, and all credulity from, en.wp. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Fram was railroaded!} 19:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

So when is the RfC being organised and by whom? Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It is being organized by the Arbitration Committee. We will hopefully start it fairly soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

His new RFA has been opened. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And closed. So much for the predictions that the RfA would be a thoughtful discussion in which editors unfamiliar with the case would listen to editors who are. I appreciate that, in fact, there were plenty of good reasons given by those who opposed. And I guess that some people can probably rationalize what happened by saying that ArbCom did a good job of assessing community consensus, and that the community ratified ArbCom's remedy. But I think that what really happened was something else. ArbCom intended to give the ultimate decision to the community, to evaluate Fram's qualifications and make a community-wide decision. What happened instead is that large numbers of editors opposed by saying that if ArbCom had found reason to require a new RfA, then there must have been a sufficiently serious problem to justify opposition. Final score: T&S 1, Fairness 0. But there actually is one genuinely good aspect to the outcome. The rational for T&S usurping enforcement of civility has become a lot weaker. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

No offense but you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist ... here're two alternative explanations: 1) People genuinely believe Fram is temperamentally unsuited to be an admin. Note this reason was given by many of the oppose votes. 2) People believed Arbcom, who were after all elected by community consensus. In the same way if scientists say climate change is happening, one does not have to become a climate scientist to say "OK, I believe them". Also as long as we're in the business of questioning the motives of the voters, here're a few theories: 1) Only the people who spend too much time on the drama boards believe Fram should be given the mop. That's why the RfA started with a majority support, such that when Drmies posted his reason to oppose he said "The RfA is likely to pass", before inclining towards "oppose". 2) The same people who gave Fram the false impression that the community approves of his actions are now attempting to rationalize why his RfA could fail. Surely the community must've been misled, because no rational person will oppose his RfA. Final score: misinformation 1, rationality 0.
If you found any of this offensive, that's the same thing I feel when reading your comment. Banedon (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I said: "I appreciate that, in fact, there were plenty of good reasons given by those who opposed." I meant that. The reason that I posted what I did, is that it goes to how ArbCom carries out certain procedures, in this case the construction of a Proposed Decision. I've been saying through a lot of the case that it was necessary for ArbCom to make clear, via the Findings of Fact, what the exact reason was for the desysop. By convention, the Remedies are supposed to grow out of the Findings of Fact, which in turn are supposed to grow out of the Principles. It did not happen here. And that is directly relevant to the RfA, because the community (not to mention Fram) is entitled to know, explicitly, what the reason was for the desysop, so that the community can decide for ourselves what we think of that reason. A little higher in this discussion, I also said: "This isn't about how the RfA turns out. It's about fairness." My purpose is not to disparage other editors who participated in the RfA, nor even to disagree with them. And I certainly do not think them irrational. But I do think that they were badly served by how ArbCom wrote the decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram has been told the reasons for his desysop - they're there in the "Evaluation of Community Evidence (2)" and "Evaluation of Office-provided case materials", as well as the less specific "Fram's conduct as an administrator". What he hasn't been given is diff based evidence supporting those reasons. Now, I understand your point of view that without that evidence it is unfair to desysop - indeed, I voted that way in the decision, but there will come a point that we have to accept this outcome. It does not establish precedent, it was done out of process due to the circumstances and I don't believe anyone wants us to do this again. Worm^TT(talk) 08:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Tryptofish, You say ArbCom intended to give the ultimate decision to the community, to evaluate Fram's qualifications and make a community-wide decision - but I don't believe that's the case. Only one arbitrator supported that option (me, on a no-fault basis). The majority of the committee decided to "take over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools". I may not have agreed with that option, but it's what happened. The "regain by RfA" is standard to any desysop by the committee. Worm^TT(talk) 08:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and I'm really not trying to give anyone a hard time – and by this point, I think we all just want to move on, and I sure do. I think we can all agree that there is no precedent established by it, and that no one wants a situation like this one again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned. Would you elaborate on "The majority of the committee decided to "take over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools".". I do not want to think the beginning actions of the WMA or T&S was faulty. There was a complaint that needed attention. I do feel it went down-hill with the "we are the ultimate authority --and all have to abide or else" mentality, as well as the blatant arrogance of at least one member. I feel that deciding ArbCom could not be trusted was a mistake, and I feel ArbCom making any decision possibly based on the fact that "big brother" was looking on and attempting any "compromise" over fairness would be just stacking up mistakes. The man that started this whole community stated we were not to have secret trials but there was one so that was a big mistake. Now the statement above (take over the decision) gives me the impression that ArbCom "took over" a decision that was ultimately the responsibility of the community. Would you please clarify the wording? I do not want to be mistaken in thinking ArbCom (a majority anyway) might have done the same thing to the community that T&S did to ArbCom and the community. I would hope ArbCom would not entertain the thought of advancing one wrong-doing by redirecting it to yet another one nor, do I want Fram to be totally exonerated if there is fault. The dilemma is T&S said he is guilty, ArbCom (a majority) sort of kind of agrees, so he must be guilty but we (the community) has to just take it for granted because there is a complete gag order so it must remain secret. Because of the secrecy I am going to side with Fram and hope he is not guilty --and that is just not fair either. Anyway, my concern is the implications that ArbCom may have usurped authority they do not possess. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What? What benefit could arise from pursuing this case now, after the walls of text already expended? The WMF T&S team were overruled—that's about all that can be expected since we don't do heads-on-pikes. There is no way WTT can "clarify" the very simple wording in the remedy. A formal remedy like that cannot be expanded on or otherwise clarified unless by motion of Arbcom. WTT might give personal opinions but that is not the point. Everyone has personal opinions and there has been plenty of time for them to be aired. It is well established that Arbcom is the body which can evaluate private evidence—that's why we elected them (among their other duties). Do you want access to that private evidence? Or perhaps you want the fact that Arbcom can evaluate private evidence overturned? Neither of those is going to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Otr500: Hope you don't mind me answering, even though you pinged WTT. By "took over" we mean that we took on the decision to desysop as our own. The options we picked between were: restore Fram's sysop rights, leave Fram desysoped and take no action (thus leaving the WMF action in place), or "take over" the desysop (decide that we were going to desysop Fram as an ArbCom action). We chose the former. I personally opposed the second one because the desysop was a WMF housekeeping action accompanying the ban, and since we lifted the ban it would not have made sense to leave the desysop in place.

Regarding your point Anyway, my concern is the implications that ArbCom may have usurped authority they do not possess., the ArbCom does possess the authority to desysop an administrator (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities); in fact it is the only way on the English Wikipedia an administrator may be desysopped (outside of stewards removing tools in an emergency situation). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@ User:Johnuniq: The benefit is because there is supposedly no precedent set so we can hopefully not repeat bad history. I don't care about "walls of text". My comments were derived from a statement time and dated 08:35, 30 September 2019, that I did not understand. I don't want access to private information, I don't want T&S telling us that we cannot figure out how to govern ourselves as a community, and I want ArbCom to be aboveboard and as transparent as possible. The need to "evaluate private evidence" requires that some information remain "private" but not that secret trials should ever be entertained. Since this has already happened with a horrible outcome we need to make sure it doesn't happen again. One thing I have figured out, that would likely only be opposed by a tree, is that the community cannot be expected to have zero information because of secrecy (as in trials), total gag orders, and then be expected to make some decision that would either be erroneous or a rubber-stamp. If someone is going to be hung in private don't ask the community to support or justify it. Anyone that supports secret trials would be scary to me. I think that is why we are where we are now and there is distrust.

@ GorillaWarfare: Thanks for your reply. I understand about the decision. Right, wrong, or indifferent I am glad ArbCom took some action as leaving the WMF (or T&S) action in place was not a good option. Sometimes something that can seem so plain can be mistaken. The concern of usurping power was because I saw where Tryptofish made comments, "ArbCom intended to give the ultimate decision to the community, to evaluate Fram's qualifications and make a community-wide decision.", then the comments by WTT. Considering those statements I was finding it hard to believe ArbCom might consider their actions not accountable by the community, if that was the decision. As for as I have seen the "community", barring some legalities, still hold the rights to consensus on aspects concerning Wikipedia. That is why the comments also by WTT "My preference was for a "no-fault" RfA - I know it's almost impossible, but try to look at Fram's admin rights as if he were choosing to run a reconfirmation RfA - allowing the community to show what reasons they have for and against him being an admin. None of this cloak and dagger nonsense.", made sense but would have been sort of unfair to the community. The ban was overturned but the accused was still found guilty of something. Some may support this all the way until they are the ones being pursued.

By-the-way, this is likely not over yet (I hope so) as the drama has not unfolded from what I read above, unless Fram decides to let it lie or maybe run for ArbCom. That was a preposterous suggestion but stranger things have happened. I am glad ArbCom took the case on. If I have something against any ArbCom member it would not be because of this case. The community demanded that WMF let "us" police ourselves so even if I were to disagree with the findings I supported the move to let ArbCom handle it. Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Otr500, I'm not sure why you think that the committee does not consider their actions accountable to the community - we are of course accountable there, most obviously at the annual elections. My comment above about a reconfirmation RfA was in a direct response to someone asking how they should vote. They had the choice of believing Arbcom's statements or not - or indeed completely putting that out of their mind and evaluating the candidate, which is what I was recommending. Otherwise, I agree with GW's assessment of the situation. Can I recommend looking at the meta RfC to raise some of these points? Arbcom will be also raising an RfC soon also. Worm^TT(talk) 07:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500: Are you aware that there was a reconfirmation RfA which was closed early with 108 supports for reconfirmation, and 122 opposes? Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not see the RFA. It was pretty close so he may ask for a run-off. The evidence seems to indicate by "Oppose" comments that Wikipedia:ADMINCOND (also ArbComs reasoning), temperamentally unsuited to be an admin (temperament concerns), behavioral concerns, community trust, incivility, long-standing conduct issues, and combativeness, seems to have resulted in more of a Not now . Taking out consideration of the T&S and ArbCom actions, taking into account editor issues, I would have offered an "oppose" and I think the end result acceptable.

@ WTT, I stated from what I had read (Considering those statements) "I was finding it hard to believe ArbCom might consider their actions not accountable", not that I thought the committee did not consider their actions accountable. It was unfortunate that I did not know of the RFA when I made the comments, was busy working, working on some articles, and then had an internet failure. Maybe moving forward the subject will work on being "more friendly" as I am convinced incivility is an issue we can live without. Otr500 (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Pure peanut gallery comment: fourth time the charm. Seriously... this kind of stuff is why very few envy the Arbitrators their 'job' Good luck figuring this one out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely, the complexity of ARBPIA was one reason why it never interested me an area as an editor and that becomes 1000x more true as a potential admin work area. I'm not sure if I have enough 0s to add on to add it as an area for Arbitrator consideration. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The IceWhizz ban was decided by five Wikipedians. Given that the full strength ArbCom should be fifteen, it sees a good idea to move the elections forward to as-soon-as-practicable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC).

According to WP:ACE2019, the community election RFC just closed. One of the larger issues this was to establish better emergency election protocols. The current interim election policy required the normal election to be followed which would have been nearly identical to the current ACE2019 timeline. Mkdw ^talk 22:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the "decided by five Wikipedians " comes from. I count the Ice Whizz decision as 6 nill with two arbs not voting, presumably if the first six were split four two the decision would have been delayed until more Arbs had voted. I have no knowledge of IceWhizz or the case, but I'm not convinced that closing a case when it is 6 nill is a reason why we need to bring the next arb elections forward, especially as they are due so soon anyway. ϢereSpielChequers 10:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, It was 5-0 with 3 not voting at posting, Opabinia voted belatedly. Otherwise, I agree with your assessment. Worm^TT(talk) 10:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I hadn't realised that the committee was down to 8 members of whom only 6 were active. At that point there is a risk that you have a decision where the committee is split 2, 2, 2, 2 - two inactive, two each way and two recused. I'm happy that a committee of 8 accepts a 5 nil decision, I just hope we don't get a divisive close call before the next election. ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that if there was a non-urgent matter on which they were truly split 50:50 it would be deferred until the new committee is in place. In an urgent situation I suppose Jimbo could be asked to cast a deciding vote. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Fyi, the normal election process is already well underway. It is following the timetable created by the community, which Arbcom does not have the authority to modify. And yes, going forward we have new brand new procedures in place for interim elections, so this should not happen again. But I do not think we should or can fairly de-legitimize Arbcom because of all the resignations. These folks are still appointed by the community and have the full mandate of Arbcom authority. I don’t see why them doing their job is a problem. It’s not their fault every one else has quit. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You'll likely be seeing this on your doorstep before long. You may want to get a head-start on the reading as it is quite the "tl;dr". — Ched (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Blimey O'Reilly. And people wonder why it's hard work being an arbitrator!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Piece of cake after the T&S/WMF one. — Ched (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are a whole lot of sticks that need dropping regarding Portals - or at least there were when I last paid attention to the area about 6 months ago and a quick glance shows some very familiar names. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Just don't shoot the messenger. — Ched (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No messenger shooting intended - merely an observation of the topic area. If/when this does come to arbcom I would strongly encourage the committee and the clerks to be extremely firm with word limits unless they desire to read even more novellas. This is possibly the most verbose dispute I have seen for many years! Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering whether the RfC set to be taking place under ARBCOM auspices about private cases et al, is planned to be before or after the ARBCOM elections? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The original plan was to have it as soon as possible. Due to our reduced numbers right now we have not had the time to get it set up. We know how important this RFC will be and how patiently people have been waiting for it. It's something we will have to consider. Mkdw ^talk 03:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That's fine - I was just thinking that it would probably not be helpful to have overlapping the elections and tranches - obviously that might impose an 8 week delay (I always forget how long our elections are), but that might be preferable to a non-smooth running discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this is not fine, especially since we just had another incident that would have been affected by this promised ArbCom RfC. If the current arbitration committee isn't planning to prioritise a straight forward remedy that they have promised to commit to, just say so. It's fine to leave it to the next batch, but non-answers like something we will have to consider while obviously prioritising in some other questionable areas isn't really appropriate, in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point with regards to ambiguity. I don't mind them prioritising either clearly imminent issues or, perhaps much more likely, more viably short-term resolvable important issues, but you're probably right that either ARBCOM should launch it or specifically state it's going to be a fun January task. I'm sure we'll get lots of questions for Arb candidates on it, but better that then questions based on a fast-moving discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The most abusive arbitrator in recent memory who consistently demanded accountability from other sysops while lying to the community as a whole and hiding behind the protection of the very privacy policy he broke really has no room to be critiquing the current committee on this. You are not here in good faith, and the entirety of your edits since your hypocrisy was revealed to the community have been actions intentionally set on dividing the English Wikipedia rather than finding common ground. I’m personally tired of it, and I suspect many others are too. Unless you actually have constructive things to add, rather than just attacks on the current committee because you are mad many of its members insisted on holding you accountable, you really should stop commenting on Arbitration pages, Alex. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Going to agree with Tony here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, TonyBallioni, but you simply do not get to cast aspersions nor make gross assumption of bad faith here. Please re-read "Comment on content, not on the contributor", "All editors are required to act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum", and reflect again on whether or not your commentary against myself here is consistent with these basic policies in addition to WP:ADMINCOND. If arbitrators and clerks find my commentary inappropriate, they are free to hat them accordingly as arbitration page moderation have been taking place on regular basis recently. If you have problem with my comments at arbitration pages, you know where the correct venue is to reflect on this, and I'll remind you it is not here. Alex Shih (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

[2], Special:Contributions/Alex Shih. You are here in bad faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The community can do plenty of work preparing the ground, if it truly feels this is a high priority matter. We could start a pure brainstorming session, for example: no support/oppose voting, just tossing out ideas, and then the community can take these ideas and try to coalesce them into rough proposals. If anyone would like to discuss this further, please let me know. isaacl (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

My offer to help still stands, though we might have very different ideas related to the subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

So many directions to investigate, so little time :-) For the reference of others, that conversation can be found within Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 44 § Section break, and was regarding starting a discussion on establishing norms for desired behaviour, so it's a slightly different focus that the discussion I proposed now, which would be about ideas of how to handle situations involving privately-provided evidence. I did start a page laying out my initial thoughts on how to proceed regarding behavioural norms; if anyone is interested in discussing that with me, please let me know, too. isaacl (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: - that's a good thought, and I've seen you handle a couple of proposal pages - if you create a page let me know and I'll happily contribute. If I get a free day I can have a read over the FRAM case workshop page and a few relevant bits of WP:FRAMBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If people would like to start now, then I'd like someone else to take on the role of shepherding discussion (although the other discussions I was trying to start are essentially stillborn, there are still a few more I want to try to initiate). If you're interested and would like to discuss how to proceed further, please let me know. Or just do it! isaacl (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

January would allow for discussion between the community and candidates, and it won't hurt that the majority of arbitrators will have been elected post-Fram.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: By January new committee will be elected already, did you mean November? In any case, the new committee post-FRAM will likely be more involved on this, which can only be positive. Thank you Isaacl for taking the initiative. Alex Shih (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Alex Shih, I'm saying that the newly-elected committee would have more of a mandate to tackle such a difficult matter than the current committee does. In my opinion anyway. So I meant January.--09:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I know this is going to come across as "WP:POINTy", and I honestly don't mean it to. There really is a question that I'm looking for an answer to. In the following situation:

• the Committee resolves that <User:A> be indefinitely banned from interacting with, or commenting on <User:B>

how many edits must their be between the editors editing the same article? Or is this a case that once editor B has edited an article, then editor A may never edit said article? And please, no snark - I'm not trying to be a jerk, I honestly am looking for an answer. — Ched (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched, there is no firm restriction on editing the same articles. Instead, the wording at WP:IBAN says that interaction-banned parties are not permitted to undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. They are also not permitted to refer to each other directly or indirectly, which often applies to edit summaries. – bradv🍁 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope people realize how silly that sounds. "You can edit the same pages, but you can't do anything that modifies the edit of the other editor" is essentially saying that the IBanned editor is not permitted to effectively edit the page. Ever. Arbcom needs to be upfront and say what it really means; it's pretty obvious that what they mean this time is "don't touch the page that the other user has edited, because if you do and you change so much as one letter of their edit, we're going to piledrive you into the floor". This pussyfooting is genuinely harmful. Risker (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but User:Bradv himself has interpreted the IBAN restriction (as instituted by ArbCom) quite differently than what he writes above, more along the lines of what User:Risker is saying. There's one policy as written for the books, and another policy as applied in practice (which is basically "whatever I happen to say it is at any given moment"). Volunteer Marek 18:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Quite so, the utter bullshit nonsense excuses "reasons" going on for the recent block of Ritchie333 under some derisory claim of "reversion" (which actually was COMPLETELY AND COMPREHENSIVELY DEALING WITH A SPEEDY DELETION TAG) means that Arbcom must now define the parameters that one of their own deemed was illegally crossed. I want to know what the statute of limitations is on an edit. How long after an edit has been made by someone in an IBAN can the other editor in that IBAN then edit the same article, potentially removing or modifying the previous edit, all in good faith? Sadly some answer like "there is no firm restriction" pales into ridicule when Ritchie was summarily slapped with a week-long ban without any discussion or communication for doing the right thing for Wikipedia and its millions of readers, not to mention the subsequent witch hunt where he was accused of "harassment" and lying. Arbcom must clarify this. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Risker, I just quoted from the banning policy. I agree that IBANs can be cumbersome to work around, but that policy was written by the community, not Arbcom. If the policy is silly it can and should be changed. – bradv🍁 18:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, quoting from the policy is irrelevant in this case, because it's an Arbcom-applied sanction, and it means what Arbcom means, not what is written in the community policy. Arbcom needs to say what it means when it applies these sanctions and be very specific. Risker (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Risker, I've seen no evidence that Arbcom intended to apply any restriction other than exactly what is written the IBAN policy. – bradv🍁 18:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused, what they intended to do isn't being discussed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure it is. Risker is suggesting that Arbcom didn't say what they meant when they applied the IBAN. The question was asked above what the IBAN means with regard to editing the same articles, and I explained it by quoting the policy. I haven't seen any evidence that Arbcom didn't mean what they say. Unless this whole thread is a roundabout way of complaining about a block made by an arbitrator in their regular admin capacity, in which case this is most certainly the wrong venue. – bradv🍁 18:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No, Risker is noting what the community has grave concerns over, i.e. the over-reach of the Arb who applied a block claiming an IBAN incursion when one was not clear. It also throws light onto the thinking process of the Arb in question's ability to judge the situation per INVOLVED, and to the whole IBAN definition. It's nothing to do with "complaining", it's to do with process clarification. If you can't see that, I'd suggest you don't continue to exacerbate the situation here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I repeat...this is a quixotic interpretation of the policy. And any arbitrator who enforces an arbcom sanction is acting as an arbitrator when enforcing a sanction imposed by Arbcom. They don't get to pretend they're "just an admin" for that purpose. The fact that an arbitrator is stalking the edits of an editor whom they have sanctioned for stalking someone else's edits is not coincidental. Bradv, please stop answering for Arbcom until you're elected to the committee; you're an arbcom clerk, and your role is to keep these pages orderly, not to interpret the decisions of the committee. Let's have some arbitrators responding here, please. Risker (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Those wedded to process over quality gradually forget who we're ultimately here for, I suspect. And—let's be blunt—that self-same WP:READER doesn't give a about these processes; they'll just wonder where an article has gone when it's been deleted. Luckily for those so wedded, of course, he won't know or care whether it was deleted out of process or nay...Hey ho. 18:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)——SerialNumber54129

I don't think the policy is "silly", it's just being implemented incorrectly recently. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

So maybe the question is, in terms of "editing the same article" what constitutes a breach of IBAN? The exemplar we have here is that Praxidicae applied a speedy deletion tag to an article and Ritchie333 addressed the speedy deletion tag by removing everything that was a copyright violation. Naturally, this included removing the speedy deletion tag because after Ritchie's work, the article was no longer a copyvio. This was in no sense a "revert" or an "undo" of another user's edit. But nevertheless a week-long block was summarily applied without any communication with Ritchie. The rest is sadly history. So, the precedent has been set, either a vast swath of the community do not understand Arbcom's interpretation of "revert"/"undo", or the underlying claim of IBAN infringement (and the so-called "harassment" of Praxidicae, who tagged the article presumably in the hope that the issue would be addressed one way or the other) is questionable. Are people under IBAN now mandated to check every article they edit to ensure material they may "revert"/"undo" (for which you can see "rephrase" or "correct") hasn't been added by the individual with which they are IBANed? As Ched noted, it may seem POINTY, but it really isn't. I have never seen anyone blocked for addressing a G11, regardless of status, yet in this case, a block was summarily applied, the recipient was accused of harassment, lies etc, not one jot of good faith was given, and now we need answers about the extent to which an IBAN impacts future editing. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this is really important, especially in the current "everyone is harassing everyone" climate. Could Arbcom or someone more capable please describe the steps required to elicit input from the community on the definition of what constitutes the breach of an IBAN? Is it simply an RFC? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I also have to say that I really can't see it here. WP:IBAN says that editors may not undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means.... Addressing the concern that another editor raised by tagging an article is not undoing what that editor did, it is doing exactly what our goal should be—addressing that concern so that the issue no longer exists. Of course, at that time, one will also remove the tag, but that is not "undoing" the other editor's work; the tag is only validly placed on the article while the issue still exists. Ritchie did not, by any reasonable standard, "undo" Praxidicae's edit, he addressed the concern that Praxidicae (entirely validly) raised. That's the exact kind of thing we should want to see happen, not something that we should be penalizing someone for. (That's aside the fact that the existence of the IBan was placed under...shall we say, troubling circumstances, to begin with.) Even if this is, in the most hypertechnical sense, a violation, any enforcement here was a very bad call. I see this isn't on appeal at AE, but it should be, and I certainly know I'd argue to reverse. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the block is overturned, the "hypertechnical"/"wikilawyering" approach adopted by the blocking (potentially involved) Arb needs investigation. This must not be allowed to wither on the vine, we are in "interesting times" and we must work to protect those acting in good faith rather than doubling down and accusing them of lying and harassment when it's clear to most that that's not the case. Who needs to do that? Is it only Ritchie333 himself? I'd certainly be happy to bring this up at AE for clarification on the behaviour of those involved and clarification on the definition of IBAN. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yay - I'm not alone anymore. I guess I really need to work on my timing, and not ask questions so early. — Ched (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Your question was really important. It's also important that we aren't closed down by a clerk, and it's also important that we examine whatever's left of the current committee and their ability to conduct their position. Right now, we have a precedent-setting block by a (potentially involved) Arb which needs examination. I've seen elsewhere that this current crop has been declared as the worst Arbcom on record, that's a hell of a record to set, but just now, we're in a position where it feels like we need to re-examine everything this committee is committing to doing. Current performance is seriously damaging any confidence we may have in future committees. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  I've only just noticed we're now down to FOUR active Arbs, including "Premeditated Chaos". Could someone point me to the timelines, i.e. will "Premeditated Chaos" be here for another year, or do they have to reapply? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, to answer your two questions: Yes, Ritchie must write his own AE appeal if he wishes to appeal. Appeals filed by a third party on someone else's behalf aren't considered. He can write it on his talk page and ask that it be copied there. (He could also appeal to AN if he prefers.) So far as arbitrators' terms, the timeline is listed at the 2019 election page. PMC is one whose term will expire at the end of 2019. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks Seraphimblade. Given my run-ins with the previous less incompetent Arbcoms, you'd have thought I'd know all that... I suppose a general look at the misbehaviour here could be actioned by anyone if they're not asking for Ritchie to be unblocked, i.e. a look at the general "what kind of general editing does IBAN cover" would seem to be in order here given the over-reach by the departing Arb. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man We are down to 4 active arbs. I'm one of the inactive ones, because I rarely edit during the weekend and I'm off on holiday next week (my first break since the Fram case) and I really don't fancy dealing with Wikipedia while I'm away. I don't believe anyone would begrudge me that. I also believe every other inactive arbitrator has just as valid reasons (if not moreso) to be inactive and I don't believe we should be begrudging them either. Worm^TT(talk) 07:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• As to Ched's question, seen though the optics of additional information, I absolutely understand why PMC blocked Ritchie. There was consensus among the committee that he had overstepped the line with regards to following Praxidicae's edits - especially around CSD. It was also clear that both parties wanted to stop interacting with each other. As such, the committee implemented an IBAN, the same IBAN that had not quite gained community consensus at AN previously. Since then, Ritchie has referred to Praxidicae multiple times, leading to the first block - those are IBAN violations, plain and simple. Since his return, he has stopped referring to Praxidicae, but he has been making comments about her on an off wiki forum, ones that cross a line based on information Arbcom has received (and Ritchie is aware of). So when Ritchie directly reverted Praxidicae, I understand why PMC has blocked.
  Personally, I believe this should have been passed to AE - I don't like Arbs enforcing their own decisions, but what's done is done. Worm^TT(talk) 07:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  No he didn’t “directly revert” anything. That’s simply untrue and should stop being repeated as if it was fact. He addressed the G11 tag. And the block was given for that, by the involved Arb, not for off wiki activities over which Arbcom have no jurisdiction. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, is there any reason he could not have done all the work without removing the tag? Then he would not have reverted her in whole or in part - someone else could have removed the tag. Worm^TT(talk) 09:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Is there any reason to leave material which isn't a copyvio with a tag? I think your very question exemplifies the tragedy unfolding here. Truly an epic piece of wikilawyering to consider addressing a copyvio as ongoing harassment. And in any case, it's abundantly clear from the discussion ongoing at AN that the blocking Arb got this spectacularly wrong. So time to address that now I think rather than continue the wikilawyering around what was clearly not a "direct revert". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it be pointless leaving a CSD tag on something you've spent 2 hours improving/eliminating basically?, Seems counter-productive to leave a CSD tag on something you've fixed. –Davey2010^Talk 09:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  All this talk of reverting a tag is missing the point of view of the other editor. If I felt that person A was paying undue attention to the tags I add to articles, then person A working to resolve a raised issue I flagged, when there are volunteers who can respond, is going to engender the same unease in me that caused me to wish to disengage from person A. Responding to a raised issue identified by a tag is an interaction akin to responding to someone who raises an issue at a noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not at all. In fact, it would have been derelict of Ritchie to have ignored a copyright violation sitting there for all to see. What Ritchie did was even better, he not only addressed the copyvio tag, but he improved the article beyond recognition. For which he was summarily blocked by an involved Arb. That was harassment, not what Ritchie did. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Why would he leave a CSD tag on something he had already fixed? That would just waste the time of a reviewing admin; editors other than the author are permitted to remove CSD tags once the reason for deletion no longer applies. As to the point raised by Isaacl, WP:IBAN does not, as of today, prohibit an editor from simply editing an article that the other has edited, nor correcting problems that the other editor has called attention to. If we think it should prohibit that, we should change that policy, but it's unfair to block people for that until and unless that happens. So, the fact remains that removal of the tag is the only thing Ritchie could be said to do that even in the most technical sense violates policy—and that's such a nitpicky, hypertechnical violation that it amounts to absolutely nothing. And I wouldn't even say that Ritchie undid Praxidicae's edit; rather, he reacted to a fundamental change in circumstances. When Praxidicae placed the tags, the article was a copyvio and an advertisement. When Ritchie removed them, it no longer was either. Praxidicae's placement of the speedy requests was entirely valid and well-founded, but after Ritchie's edits, those tags were no longer applicable. If we are going to count Editor B making indisputable improvements to an article as "harassment" because Editor A called attention to those problems, and penalize someone for making them, we've got our priorities very, very wrong somewhere along the line. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Welcome to the team. Very excited to see these appointments TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks to the organizers and the new functionaries for their offer to serve. –xeno^talk 15:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• I wonder why the community feedback was so dead this year. When I looked over years past it seemed like there was always a lot more participation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think after last year's contentious it was restructured in a way that made it less like a vote and thus tamped things down overall which seems productive to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a complaint, just an observation. I do think last year got more than a bit out of hand. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I gave what feedback I had via email on the functionaries list; I saw no reason to make those thoughts public, especially because this wasn't a !vote, and so there was no reason to attempt to persuade anyone. I suspect others felt the same. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think previously there was more publicity for the consultation stage at WP:AN and the admin's newsletter (and sometimes also the Signpost). Not so much this year. It may be something to consider in the future - watchers of the admin noticeboards are probably well placed to offer opinions (as long as they don't opine too much). Also, thanks and congratulations/sympathies to everyone. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations everyone! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• It's interesting to learn that a requirement for Checkuser is to have a username composed only of letters and numbers, but no full words. (Just kidding!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• No need to be kidding there, I was most impressed by it myself; MPS1992 (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• As well you should! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Seems suspicious. Probably some cabal rule. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  I think it's because they're actually the same person. Someone should run a CU on the lot of them just to be safe. ("who checkusers the checkusers?") ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Who chekcusers the checkusers? Ultimately, the Ombudsman commission. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Who ombuds the ombudsmen? ;) Is ombud a verb? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether you were serious when you labelled this a "legit question" in your edit summary, but I am. Have they been any more effective since the commission's most recent report, which states they closed only two of the fourteen cases brought to them? There's no first-half-of-2019 report at all. —Cryptic 22:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• I hadn't been serious (it applied to my verb query), but I would be interested to read the report if one can be found. I'll have a look through your linked one now. If a new one hasn't been posted that's probably a point for a new discussion topic somewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Shortest average username for CU of any year? SQL^{Query me!} 00:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• @KrakatoaKatie: (only picking on you because you are "per the committee"!) Apologies if I'm missing somethng obvious, but isn't Oshwah missing from that list? Per [3]. Admittedly it might nt matter after a week, but for the records...? ——SerialNumber54129 14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, Oshwah was appointed an oversighter last year, which is what the diff represents. – bradv🍁 14:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: I wasn't asking you. Although your point is relevant. I was thinking the CU role. Greatly appreciate your answer though. I hope the new hat fits. Good to see some new blood in Da family  :) Goodbye. ——SerialNumber54129 14:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Oshwah was not appointed as a CU. Katie^talk 15:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Although it's true I'm not really using suppression, I think it has in the past been usual to warn people when this is about to happen. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Communication and this iteration of committee ain't the best of pals ..... ∯WBG^converse 08:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

On the heels of three announcements from the committee and that we had given DGG a preliminary notice about the general requirements, albeit awhile ago, but also more than enough time to determine whether he would meet the criteria or not. Mkdw ^talk 15:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it was just (*sunglasses*) an oversight on their part ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

YEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! rdfox 76 (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

DGG The WP:OS#Policy section says: The Arbitration Committee has also ruled that permission will be revoked from oversighters who do not meet the minimum activity level. Minimum activity level seems to be defined at this section of an WP:AN archive here. In the numbered list:

3. Reply within seven days to email communications from either the Audit Subcommittee or the Arbitration Committee about their use of the permissions.

could you have missed an email? I'm not sure what categories you fall into, (such as Ombudsman Commission), but it does state you can ask for them back if you agree to be active. — Ched (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of that is not as a warning but as a general requirement, i.e. failing to reply to an email from ArbCom about use of the perms would constitute failing to meet the minimum activity level, which is generally five logged actions in the preceding three months, with some other allowances. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Joking aside, DGG is right. There should have been at least one or two emails letting you know that this was about to happen if your activity levels didn't increase. If this was out of the blue, I can imagine how this would sting a little, even if you agree the removal was legitimate, and even if you did get a "thank you for your service" out of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

During my 4 years on arb com, we permissions either by agreement or after first a question about whether there was going to be use of the rights, and at least one warning. . The reconsiderations of functionary activity are in principle every three months, but we often skipped one for lack of time. And at the one this summer, I was asked about my low activity, and I said I planned to increase it. I didn't really do so, and certainly expected a question or a warning about now, and I was planning to respond to it. We sometimes gave repeated warnings for a year or more without any improvement, and then did remove permissions. That previous practice was over-lax, and it's wholly in keeping with the way WP works for it to flip to the opposite. This is not a complaint exactly, just a comment. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I've seen reference to that archive before - if this is an actual policy it should probably be documented on a normal policy or procedure page for current reference. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I linked above to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#CheckUser/Oversight_permissions_and_inactivity, which is where the activity requirements and removal procedures are codified. Worth a read given your new hat! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

During the previous audit, in August, DGG was below activity requirements and had been for quite some time (no OS actions in six months). We notified him then about the general requirement and inquired whether he would increase activity. Fast forward to now, we noticed the tools still remained unused (two actions in ten months), so we added him to the list of removals. I apologize we did not give you the heads up right before the notice, but this certainly did not come out of the blue without any communication about general requirements. As a former Arbitrator, I think we more or less expected you would know the deal and if you really wanted them back could simply ask. If anything, we gave DGG more than the usual amount of time and a much longer than normal grace period without using the tools while still retaining them. It is not uncommon for former Arbitrators to not keep up with using the tools, especially if they were not appointed the CUOS tools prior to being on the committee. Mkdw ^talk 15:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I recall giving people much more time. It is very different to ask, and then decide & act, than to act, and then wait for an appeal. There are different styles at arb com. If I were appealing, I'd say that what I want to do with oversight is examine oversighted diffs to judge the course of an arguments, or the degree of disruption or trolling. This does I think not produce a logged action. I consider this just as valid as my original request for Admin, where I said the main point was to check on articles that had been deleted.. I'll wait for the new committee. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We have been doing audits more frequently since we changed the activity requirements. Mkdw ^talk 04:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that there are currently enough oversighters that it can be difficult to achieve the number of supressions. For example, in the last four days I've seen only one ticket in the enwp oversight queue when I've logged in and that was actually requesting a suppression on Wikidata. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It is why we changed the activity requirements to also take under consideration OS actions such as declining tickets (for example we received five OS requests yesterday) and participation in list discussions when OS blocks are made or second opinions sought. Mkdw ^talk 15:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If it would help I could start making random edits requiring suppression so as to give everyone a chance to do something. EEng 07:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Amory's link should probably be added to the Wikipedia:Oversight#Assignment_and_revocation section. The link I pointed to seems a bit out of date. — Ched (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

   Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Great to see continuation of what I have seen previously that these permissions granted via other elections are being relinquished and or removed as in this case in an acceptable time limit. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

The requests have been posted on m:SRP and rights where granted by MarcoAurelio, so all the scrutineers should have CU access now. CodeLyoko^talk 11:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

As noted by AGK, it might be wiser to grant more general (might be blanket-ish) motion to handle reserve and co. in one motion than two or three motions draining your time. You eventually ended up with one last year, when I was quite ill and had to be replaced. — regards, Revi 11:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, in last year's additional motion, the Committee included the preemptive line Any additional reserve stewards appointed to scrutineer the 2018 election may also be granted temporary local CheckUser permissions without a further motion of the Arbitration Committee. I noted at the time that it technically gives the election coordinators the ability to grant temporary CU permissions, but then again they can only choose from stewards, so not really a concern. On the other hand, with so few active arbs, it's somewhat quicker to wrangle a majority! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Thank you for your many years of service Deskana. –xeno^talk 00:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks! I'm still around and semi-active, but I've not found much time for checkuser work recently, especially since the new checkusers are doing so well at SPI. I may pick up checkuser work again in the future, if there's a need. :-) --Deskana (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• This looks like a good team, congrats! -- Luk ^talk 10:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick, but is there/was there an actual discussion prior to this ban? The link here just goes to a talkpage, back to the same boiler-plate template at WP:AC, in a mobius strip. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for Sk8erPrince. The link above is to discuss this announcement. Regards SoWhy 16:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks SW. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee conducted their investigation and discussion privately due to confidential off-wiki information that would have [further] OUTED this person's real life identity [and other personal information] on the English Wikipedia. The "discuss this" link is meant for discussion about the announcement, not to be a link to the discussion referenced in the motion. Mkdw ^talk 16:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mkdw: - How can an editor who have already self-outed himself prominently over the user-page be re-outed again? You can have a hundred and one good reasons for this ban (and the private nature, thereof) but your aforementioned reason for private dealings seems a bit weird to me.∯WBG^converse 17:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I was not specifically referring to just their name, but other personal information about them. I have further clarified above in square brackets. Mkdw ^talk 17:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(EC) The explanation may not be the best but AFAIK, it's accepted that an editor mentioning their real name or any other such details still doesn't allow discussion over any external accounts that belong to them with very limited exceptions. The editor would need to link these external accounts themselves. In fact, sometimes the external accounts don't even seem to clearly lead to a real name. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The original question was not about why this was conducted privately. I provided a bit more detail for context, but my response to Lugnuts was not supposed to be a full and comprehensive answer on ArbCom proceedings involving confidential evidence, reports off-wiki harassment, and general privacy related specifically to this case, which is perhaps why WBG may have found it an unsatisfactory or confusing answer to a question that was not asked. Mkdw ^talk 17:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Since everyone doesn't read talk pages, it may be good to place ((ArbComBlock)) at the top of his user page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There was a lot of controversy when this was done on Eric Corbett's user page. I am not sure if public opinion has changed enough to retire that practice or continue it, but until there's a clear consensus, we should be treating everyone similarly, e.g. if we do it for Sk8erPrince then in theory it should be restored for Eric Corbett as well. Mkdw ^talk 19:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Actually per WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK "Wikipedians have individual user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to work on the encyclopedia. Limited autobiographical information is allowed, but user pages do not serve as personal webpages, blogs, or repositories for large amounts of material irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia." access to the talk-page should be revoked as it is currently being used as a shrine. [4] The question should be, is it right to keep these pages open for other editors to vent against the process rather than keep it off of Wikipedia? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The section from NOTSOCIALNETWORK you quote specifically refers to user pages. User talk pages are different. Per Wikipedia:Protection policy#Blocked users, user talk pages are almost never protected. In the case of Eric Corbett, revoking talk page access was not warranted and would not prevent others from using it as a "shrine". In any case, I believe Nihonjoe is talking about displaying the template on the user page and not the user talk page. Mkdw ^talk 03:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I strongly oppose Beeblebrox’s restoration to the CU team. He never used it, openly bragged about not knowing how to use it, and his only use of it that I’m aware of is to look at the log. We have no need for him having it for this reason. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tony. What happened here is that I am at Wikiconference North America and had an in-person discussion wherein I was strongly assured that the training I never got (which was why I gave it up to begin with) would really, truly actually happen this time, probably in-person while here at the conference. I realize that is completely not obvious, so I hope that addresses your concerns. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Your only use of it thus far has been to gossip about the CU log. I have zero trust in you having access to this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I should have posted here right after I made the announcement. In order for me to train Beeblebrox, he has to have the user right. After conversations with him this weekend, I believe he'll do just fine. Katie^talk 17:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: The Committee recently appointed a bunch of CUs, who have been doing very well and who could hit the ground running. Why do we need another one who (a) needs training and (b) has been appointed "out of process"? I know it's technically a "restoration", but if Beeblebrox never really used it... --Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t, and I think he should turn it back in. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Your only use of it thus far has been to gossip about the CU log" ^{[citation needed]}. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Gladly. You’ve discussed your own log elsewhere while criticizing the checks and while I do not think that there are privacy policy violations, I also do not think giving CU to someone who only appears to want to have it so he can say he’s a CU is ideal. You had years to be trained: any of us would have gladly done it. Instead you complained about not being trained for years, openly bragged about not knowing how to use it, and made the minimum number of checks not to have it taken away. I know I’m not the only person who feels that way because I only saw this because another CU told me and had similar concerns to the ones I have. None of this is a policy violation, but it looks terrible, and looks matter. The community trusts us because we’re competent and generally work through things methodically and with one another, usually discreetly. These are all concerns that would sink a CU appointment phase privately. I don’t think you should have gotten it back, but if you keep it, I think you should take into account these concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, Tony. I have spoken to Beeblebrox about this, and I've reiterated the need for confidentiality. When I do the training, I'm going to reiterate it again. It's not appropriate to comment about the CU log anywhere, and he knows that now and recognizes it was inappropriate. As far as being 'out of process', the policy does not require us to only appoint CUs and OSers during one annual selection period. Let's all simmer down and give the guy a chance to get proper training. The activity rules are still applicable, and if he doesn't use it, he'll lose it. Katie^talk 03:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• More baubles for users that do not need them and will not use them, same old. All advanced permissions should come with a minimum useage and automatic removal when users fail to meet them. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

CU and OS do exactly that. I gave CU up entirely voluntarily. Beeblebrox (talk)

• Tony - if only you had drafted your admin reysop proposal with the same position. He is not using it doesn't need it why should he have it. Govindaharihari (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Katie, I respect you a lot and I think you know that, but three separate active CUs have questioned this appointment either in public or private. No, we don’t get to vote on who gets it, I’m aware of that and support an oversight body getting to decide rather than having it just kicked to only active users. I personally can’t imagine working with someone who I don’t have any confidence will actually respect discussions that are supposed to be private, even if they don’t fall under the strictest reading of the privacy policy. A quick reappointment out of a desire to train someone in person isn’t great, especially when I know some arbs were already aware of concerns about his activity with the tool and comments about it. Yes, we don’t normally get a say when a former functionary wants to return, but I think there were enough concerns around his activity and judgement surrounding what is appropriate to talk about that viewing it as a new CU appointment would have been more apt. To clarify for others: I’m not accusing Beeblebrox of any policy violations that would result in removal for cause. I just don’t think his reappointment based on an in person meeting when he’s been inactive for years is ideal, and I think it’d be better if he didn’t return to having the tool. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• I am quite pleased to see BBrox back in the fold, as an would-be-active user and have a whole lot of confidence in him. Also, absent any material evidence, Tony's random personal aspersions ought be treated under purview of NPA and be accordingly, dealt with. ∯WBG^converse 04:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Arbitration Committee is in possession of what I’m discussing, so not aspersions. I sent my concerns via email with evidence. I do think it’s appropriate to publicly note disagreement on this, however, which is the reason for my public comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

    The ArbCom is the sole authority vested with the power to grant/revoke CU.

    Since you are already in contact with them and won't share the basis of your sharp criticism with us - mere mortals, I fail to see any need for this thread, other than to rake up drama and enable some misguided public sniping at Beeblebrox; remember what you were accusing Alex of, days back? ∯WBG^converse 04:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• And equally, my concerns have been raised in this forum, and some effort has been made to suppress my concerns. That is the reason for my public comment. My concerns are in the revision history. MPS1992 (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, ArbCom is the sole body empowered to appoint CUs. I support this. Making public that an active CU has concerns with restoration of privileges, even if dissenting from ArbCom, is in my opinion appropriate. I think Katie and all the arbs are acting in good faith, and the last thing I want is for this to turn into a beat up on ArbCom fest. I’ve documented my concerns here, so I don’t plan on commenting more because since by this point everyone knows where I stand. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunate that you get to say where you stand, but ordinary editors do not get to say where they stand. MPS1992 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• @MPS1992: This is not the place to moan about your block log, and that is all you are doing, under the guise of third party commentary. ——SN54129 10:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No comment on this appintment, but there is a real problem with CU training, and the two editors most interested in training = BU Rob13 and Delta Quad - are retired. BU Rob13 planned some training at the beginning of this year but it never happened. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Rob was promising this, and I thought "Oh finally, I'll really be able to be effective with this" and then... let's just summarize that with "didn't happen." And now here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Not really related to my concerns above, but literally all anyone has to do to get trained is email any of the active CUs and ask. The group training Rob did was okay (Doug was on it, iirc), but the one-on-ones are really what makes you learn. I still have some pretty significant concerns with this appointment, but if you keep it and want training beyond what Katie gives, you can reach out to me and I’d be happy to help. I think this appointment was ill-considered and don’t really think it’s a good idea for someone who multiple existing members of the team have concerns about to be reappointed, but the training issue is one I feel pretty strongly about so wanted to put it out there. Heck, I’d be willing to do a group training in late December/early January when I actually have time. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Training for both tools has always been somewhat lacking: if I recall correctly all there was available for o/s was an outdated document written by Keegan. Risker night have some ideas here. –xeno^talk 15:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, balancing that – I do not think you would ordinarily have had the opportunity to comment on the appointment in any event. Beeblebrox already held the permission and reappointments do not use the consultation process. Anyway, the committee is discussing the information provided since publishing the 9 November motion but the appointment has already taken effect. I was personally gratified to read your offer to give Beeblebrox additional training. And I also recall from my own appointment that the best lessons were conducted 1-on-1. AGK ■ 15:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I’m aware: I think I said above in my comment to Katie that I’m not really looking to turn this into a hate-on-ArbCom fest; and I don’t think there’s anything that would have led to removal for cause. I just think it could have been handled better. Anyway, thanks for the response, AGK :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What Rob did was not as much as he planned to do, and he never did get around to giving us anything in writing, which is what I'd asked for. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s a good point. I’ll try to work on a document on cuwiki that can be used as a basic reference guide that’s more up to date, and can also work on getting an early 2020 training together since I’ll have more free time then and I suspect some of the new arbs will want to learn how to use their new toolset. Thanks to both Doug Weller and Beeblebrox for raising this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of his history concerning the checkuser tool and have no opinion on that. I currently view such an appointment in a favorable light unless otherwise enlightened to the contrary but I am curious as to how Beeblebrox plans to use it. ACC, SPI, unblock requests or all of the above? If something is wrong, it could probably be rectified. I'm just not used to seeing him around SPI but hey, if he wants to help...why not?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I usually agree with Tony's judgement 90-95% of the time - probably more often than I do with Beeblebrox - but this is in the 5-10% range. I trust Beeb's motivations implicitly, have zero reason to doubt that he's willing to help out after sufficient training, and I think the "gossip about the CU log" is kind of an unfair characterization of what he actually said. Thanks for volunteering, Beeb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, I've worked with Beeblebrox a number of times and have faith in his judgement. Whilst I can't say I've never had any problems with him at all, he's always been receptive to criticism - when he hasn't met standards in the past he's taken the feedback on board and improved. I'll be looking through the emails in depth over the next couple of days, but at the moment I don't see anything outrageous. Talking about the CU log and tool in a general sense is something I do, happily - the information is free to anyone who downloads MediaWiki software.
  I have concerns that this appointment will split the CU team, but simply put Beeblebrox has been elected as an arbitrator in the past, I'm confident that if he stood in the current elections, he'd be elected again. I absolutely intend to fully digest the complaints that have been passed to the committee, giving Beeblebrox a chance to comment on the issues and hold himself to a higher standard if need be - but at present, I think this a storm in a teacup. Worm^TT(talk) 21:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'll go ahead and comment again: enough people I respect have told me in a roundabout way to back down and that I should be willing to give Beeblebrox a chance. While in all honesty, my concerns remain the same, I'm willing to do that. I started this because I felt that it did need to be voiced that concerns existed. I've done that, and from what Katie says above she's talked with Beeblebrox about at least some of them, and that she's okay with his response. I'm willing to trust the judgement of others, say that I am not infallible and can be wrong in my assessment of someone else, and move on. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  From a wholly uninvolved, plain old ordinary editor who expects functionaries to collaborate, the fact is you've been an Admin. for 2 years, a CU for 1 year and have not provided one iota of evidence in support of your bellicose outburst other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  I emailed it to ArbCom, as has been noted above, and Katie has already said she discussed it. I'm also saying above that I'm willing to defer to the judgement of others on this matter, and move on. I don't plan on fighting on this anymore, and I hope to have a collaborative relationship moving forward with Beeblebrox if he decides he wants to be more active on the CU team. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'm talking about the tone of your initial outbursts (that's what they are). As for deferring judgement - you have no choice. Based on what I've seen here I suggest you think twice and write once. Your efforts here do nothing to engender confidence that this place can ever be anything more than dysfunctional. Leaky caldron (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I sympathize with Tony's concerns but if you were going to apply that same standard to all the current CUs, you would probably have to remove a significant number of them (not commenting about the "gossiping about the CU logs" part). --Rschen7754 23:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• On the related subjects of training and testing that both came up at different points in this thread: I was also on the group training Teamspeak that Doug Weller mentioned above, and I think TonyBallioni was too but I don't recall who was and wasn't. I was going to offer to do something similar myself with this year's appointees, but I was only just reappointed (basically at the same time) and then (or just before?) DeltaQuad also retired, so we've regrettably lost some institutional continuity there. And then it seemed like everyone who was new had a good footing in the tool's use anyway, or at least I haven't seen any reason to think otherwise. On the subject of testing, maybe we can use cuwiki to set up a real-life training environment, so that if we had a guide published there then new appointees could actually run checks on their own time without possibly running inappropriate tests on enwiki data. Or maybe some of us can work together on some orientation simulations. I guess this is off-topic and it's certainly not about Beeblebrox, I guess I'll think about it and send something to the mailing list. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  There will inevitably be a new batch of people gaining CheckUser access with this year's Arbitration Committee elections, and those tend to be the people who are less technical and less familiar with SPIs/etc. compared to the CUOS appointments. Any efforts going into developing training materials would be much appreciated. I was just poking around the arbwiki getting the Committee transition checklist going and noticed that since at least 2016 or so the instructions for adding new checkusers were "ask DeltaQuad when she can do a training"... so it would definitely be a good idea to work out an alternative now that she's retired. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Well, that panned out exactly as expected, then. I still think James cantor is a problem in this area though, as an academic advocating a specific POV. Guy (help!) 12:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Quite. I'm still surprised, six years on, that ArbCom declared there was no evidence to say that Cantor has a COI, despite him literally declaring it on his talk page. Sceptre (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  If he (or any other editor) is causing problems then the usual dispute resolution methods should be followed rather than posting unsourced opinions about them here. That could include filing an amendment request to deal with their editing if necessary, but as this amendment request was only about Jokestress' editing and so anything anyone else has or hasn't done is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, yes, I know. My frustration is that the community has not fixed this long-term CPUSHer. Guy (help!) 11:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  What dispute resolution have you tried? If AN/I or AN has been tried and failed then bring it to the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Eligible editors are now invited to nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections. Nominations will not be accepted after 23:59 UTC on 12 November 2019. Voting on the candidates is scheduled to begin on Tuesday 00:00, 19 November 2019 and last until Monday 23:59, 02 December 2019 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Congratulations, SQL! — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• SQL, Please execute the following. "USE enwiki_P; DROP text; DROP users;"—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 02:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• case when SQL <> 'clerk' then 'unhappy' else 'happy' end as Fish+Karate 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Oppose the temporary injunction as written. From what I've observed, BrownHairedGirl has done extensive research, homework, and the like with respect to portal nominations. At the same time, she has a bot, as I understand it, which—instead of unlinking the backlinks for deleted portals can update the backlinks to the nearest topically relevant portal☼. It seems to me this injunction would prevent her from either nominating portals for deletion or even, potentially, from commenting to the XfD closer that she has a bot capable of performing these duties.

I would, alternatively, support a temporary two-way interaction ban between BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 as there has been some general incivility and/or passive/aggressive ignoring behaviour observed between one or both parties. I would also soft support a temporary injunction that would bar BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from !voting in Portal: namespace deletion discussions, but not from either nominating portals or making neutral comments to the XfD closer. --Doug Mehus T·C 12:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here, to paraphrase Rocket Raccoon, you don't get a vote. spryde | talk 14:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Clarification: @KrakatoaKatie, AGK, Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis, and Mkdw: not trying to get involved in drama, but wondering: does this motion extends to edits made by BHGbot per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 4? If it does, would it be a violation of a ban for me to have my bot perform the same task (assuming its approved, etc)? If not, would BHG be allowed to note the bot task in Mfds, as Dmehus brings up? --DannyS712 (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @DannyS712: We have not discussed this, so I'm speaking for myself here. BHG is not allowed to participate in MfDs about portals, period. That means no comments at all. I'm willing to let the bot task run as long as its links to the 'next most relevant' portal aren't controversial. Anyone but BHG and NA1K can note the bot task to the XfD closer. If your own bot can do the task, that's not a violation of the injunction because you're not mentioned in the injunction. Katie^talk 14:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    @KrakatoaKatie: I was asking about if it would be okay for me in terms of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors - I'm not familiar with arbitration, but was interpreting the restrictions to be a "ban" from such edits. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    @DannyS712: This isn't a ban. It's a temporary injunction; unless we enact a remedy specifying otherwise, it will expire upon conclusion of the case. You're free to take over the task if the BAG approves. Katie^talk 14:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    @KrakatoaKatie: your comment of 14:36 suggest that I can run the bot so long I a) desist from my practice of notifying my intent and b) don't do anything controversial. That seems thoroughly perverse, because it removes the opportunity to let other editors make any objections ... so I wouldn't know what's controversial.
    So I am being invited to simply guess what's controversial before making widespread changes, and am banned even from any post-close discussions notifying my intent. That's precisely the sort of mass-changes-without-notice WP:FAITACCOMPLI conduct to which I objected when NA1K did it, so there's no way I will do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    

    BrownHairedGirl, with my BAG hat on, I'd suggest you just don't run this task until this is resolved. While you have been granted a special permission, bots should not normally make an edit that would be inappropriate if made by the operator (and nobody should ever count on a bot making a future edit). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    @Xaosflux: per my comment above, that's exactly the conclusion I had reached. I am just disappointed that an Arb appears unwilling to recognise the consequences of their advice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    @Xaosflux: With you BAG hat on, is it worth filing a BRFA to take over the task? DannyS712 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    @DannyS712: that one is easy - anyone that wants to run a bot or run a new (to them) bot task should just file a BRFA :) Hat off - I really have no idea how important/helpful this task is to others, so unless you actually want to do it then letting it go un-run for a bit should also be fine. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    @BrownHairedGirl: I haven't sufficiently dug into the details of this dispute to know if that bot task would make controversial edits or not. If you think it would, don't run it. Simple as. I'm going to disengage here now, as I think the question has been answered, but I would politely request that you not refer to any opinion or statement of mine as 'perverse' again. Where I come from, that's an extremely provocative word. Thanks. Katie^talk 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    @KrakatoaKatie: I was using the term in the legal/logical sense of being self-defeating or contradictory, and I intended no offence. I was merely trying to note a contradiction which I thought was have been evident from the discussion above.
    The bot's edits have not been controversial; WP:BRFA/BHGbot 4 would not have been given bot approval if it was controversial. My point is simply that as Doug Mehus notes, if I am banned from notifying the proposed action or discussing it elsewhere, I have no way of knowing whether this is one of the rare cases where there are alternative suggestions. I had explained this in my response[5] to the proposed injunction, and assumed that arbs who had voted on the injunction would be aware of it, esp since you were pinged in that comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

    @KrakatoaKatie: Without commenting on any other aspects, I can vouch for BHG's statement that "perverse" has a non-provocative meaning in this context, as in the title of this book. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

    Or this one [6] or this one [7] or this one [8] or ... (the last one's a math book, BTW). EEng 03:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

    Thanks, NyB & EEng. I am so familiar with the legal/political usage that I was unaware of any other meaning until KrakatoaKatie objected, when I googled it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment while @BrownHairedGirl: and I have disagreed almost 100% of the time in any discussion we have had, I have found this editor to be trustworthy and enthusiastic for Wikipedia. If the editor would volunteer to adhere to the terms of the temporary injunction, I trust it would be followed. That would prevent having the actual injunction placed on the editor and achieve the same goal. Please consider this as a possibility. No one wants a "black mark" and everyone could use a break.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Bradv, as Clerk for ArbCom, could you please relay the above discussion to the ArbCom so that they might consider an emergency meeting to potentially amend the temporary injunction that would permit BrownHairedGirl to make neutral comments to the MfD closer in Portal: namespace MfD deletion discussions that her BHG bot is capable of updating backlinks to the nearest topically relevant portal? I see no reason why this injunction should restrict her from making these comments. Thanks. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  You can safely presume that the arbitrators are watching this page and have seen these comments. – bradv🍁 21:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  I heard they can even activate the mikes and cams on our personal devices. EEng 05:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  EEng, the clerks have tinfoil hats and webcam stickers for sale in the gift shop. – bradv🍁 05:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  ... with tiny cams and mikes hidden in them. You think we're fools? EEng 05:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

A good idea to do this, posting proposals on the workshop firs is something that should be done more often (although not necessarily in every case). Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf, yes. In this case, there was little downside (we are not resolving a live dispute) and lots of upside (more time polishing the text and having its effects reviewed by third parties). AGK ■ 12:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems we have some results in the ACE 2019 election. [9]. I have no idea what else is involved. — Ched (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• My condolences to those who were elected. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Again, well done, outgoing Committee! Most if not all of my concerns were addressed. Attached are some important changes that will significantly help curb both ARBPIA disruption as well as related bureaucratic quagmires. My thanks to all involved in having ARBPIA4 finally concluded. And as also mentioned, hopefully, this latest iteration will spare us from an ARBPIA5 — well, at least for the foreseeable future. Thanks again. El_C 07:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  I know I was part of this, but I'd really like to put my thanks to Premeditated Chaos who did the brunt of the work. Worm^TT(talk) 08:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'd imagine WP:A/I/PIA could use restructuring, or at least updating for some wording changes and to link to this decision. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'd probably just redirect that to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Remedies. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting to see the ARBWEATHER issue considered. I suspect the Community will sooner or later have to deal with it being weaponised on non-primary articles, but in general this seems a positive write-up. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• A very minor point: This may well be a WP:ENGVAR matter beyond my limited understanding, but I see that "counseled" in the earlier decision has become "counselled" here, and to my eyes, that looks wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I copy/pasted it verbatim as "counseled"; someone may have tweaked it after. It looks like both are valid though, the two L's is a British thing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy hollidays! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Lloll, you too! :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Wow, impressive. "Gnome de plume" my personal favourite. Wish I'd thought of that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  They'd let me usurp it, right? – Levivich 21:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  Probably not. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Holy mother forking shirt balls.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Breaking the rules - per this edit, I could vote a maximum of one time only and so would others. Edgar181 should have done the same even though the user was editing Wikipedia constructively and accurately. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 21:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Wow. That is incredibly disappointing- his socks have been pretty active in discussions, too. Gnome de Plume recently voted in an RFA. Ouch. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Wow from me, too. I've interacted quite a bit with at least two of those socks without ever suspecting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  I was about to nominate one for RfA and had arranged to meet up with two others for a Wiki-meet-up drink. Can I have a refund please? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  So Martin and Edgar walk into a bar in Bangkok. Martin says to the bartender, "Whiskey, rocks" and then turns to Edgar — "Whattaya having, Edgar? I'm buying" "Make mine a double" comes the reply... Carrite (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Adds new meaning to vote early and vote often...^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  At the same time? That would have been a fun experience. You show up and sock1 is there and you ask 'Should we wait for sock2?' Sock1 replies 'Nah let's get a drink'. So you both get one and 5 minutes later sock1 says 'I'll just popout to call sock2'. Sock1 comes back a minutes later with new clothes, glasses, a wig, and hat and you ask why they did that and their reply 'What? I'm sock2 not sock1.' And you say 'Well I didn't explicitly say you were sock1 but okay.....' Sock2 orders a drink and 5 minutes later they say 'I'll just popout to give sock1 a call.' 1 minute later sock shows up again as sock1 and you ask them 'Seriously what's with the disguises? I know you're the same person.' And they reply 'Nonono I'm sock1. Sock2 looks completely different and definitely isn't me.' You decide to put up with this one more time put when they popout to give "sock2" a call you leave. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Tryptofish: - I was unaware about a couple of them, thinking these are different users who are editing in good quality. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 21:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• If Carlsberg did socks, they would be like Edgar181 .... Britishfinance (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• This is one of the more disgusting cases I've seen in a long time. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I am quite disappointed and something that really put this into perspective with respect to the extent is this chart below. Mkdw ^talk 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

+----------------+----------------------+----------------+
| user_name      |    user_registration | user_editcount |
+----------------+----------------------+----------------+
| Edgar181       | 2005 10 14 160417    |         196322 |
| Deli nk        | 2005 11 07 145516    |          78799 |
| ChemNerd       | 2006 09 15 192833    |          17568 |
| Slideshow Bob  | 2006 10 02 182214    |            566 |
| PCock          | 2006 10 02 193930    |          15586 |
| TimBuck2       | 2006 10 03 185128    |            724 |
| Edgeweyes      | 2006 10 03 192406    |           1860 |
| Gnome de plume | 2007 10 07 131013    |           4748 |
| MetrosMan      | 2009 02 03 201525    |             15 |
| Tcg2019        | 2019 10 02 194400    |              2 |
| Dwonderl       | 2019 10 03 232520    |              0 |
| Dwndlnd        | 2019 10 03 232647    |              2 |
| Mylucideyes    | 2019 10 17 190946    |              1 |
| Mwg24          | 2019 10 24 235414    |              1 |
| Questiontoask  | 2019 11 27 152232    |              5 |
+----------------+----------------------+----------------+

I see that he created five socks since right after passing his RFA in July of 2006. Good. God. Jip Orlando (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• It makes me sad to see this. Since 2006? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Except for voting at ArbCom and RFA (where, frankly, it probably has negligible effect), I don't think these were being used as good hand/bad hand, or to attack others, or support one another in discussions, were they? What possible reason could a long term (started 2005), productive (200,000+ edits over all accounts), by-my-memory good admin (and 3 other good editor accounts I recognize) have for socking? I mean, some LTA screwball? Sure, socking makes sense. Avoiding a block/ban? OK, I get it. Someone caught up in the moment and evading 3RR? Not my cup of tea, but I guess I can at least imagine it. But Edgar? Long term? I not only can't understand it, I can't even imagine understanding it. Some kind of game, maybe? If nothing else, wouldn't that be exhausting? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  This is my reaction. Thanks for putting it into words Floq. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  There are cases where multiple accounts edited the same AfD; warnings were issued by one account and and then blocked with the admin account; edited the same articles; and edited the project space which is not permitted per WP:VALIDALT. Collectively, there are over 316,000 edits between all the accounts. I am sure the community will find even more examples where multiple accounts were inappropriately used. It is shocking, but it is not something that should have been allowed to continue. Mkdw ^talk 22:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  The block log for Edgeweyes, where Edgar edit warred using the Edgeweyes account, then blocked both Edgeweyes and the IP Edgeweyes/Edgar was edit warring with. See the edit history in May 2017 for State-sponsored terrorism. Katie^talk 22:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: I also find it hard to understand. Edgar's own explanation is on his talk page, but it doesn't shed much light. My interpretation is that it was a classic case of creating an illusion of support. For example, there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4-Ethylamphetamine, where he used a sock to add a delete !vote when it seemed his nomination was heading to a no consensus, or your own 2nd RfA ([10][11]). Presumably he picked up the habit early on and never got out of it. – Joe (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, that's exactly what I said when I reviewed the CU evidence. But it was pretty blatant. Disappointing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm confused. It looks like Edgar still has the sysop bit? Or is there a cache that hasn't been reset?--Jorm (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  We are still waiting for the bureaucrats to enact the motion. Mkdw ^talk 22:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  It's now been done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  I think folks might notice any further edits from any of those accounts? Martinevans123 (talk)

  All of the accounts were blocked as part of the ArbCom action. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  I think Martinevans123 was refering to the fact that as long as Edgar181 was an admin, they could unblock any of the other accounts but it was a moot point since in the unlikely event they tried, everyone will noticed. Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by Edgar181 on his user talk page Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Stunned. I can't imagine the energy it would take to do the total number of edits and then also to keep the editing accounts & strands separate. Shearonink (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  And the explanation is "I did it because I could." The sheer amount of planning that it took to pull off this long-term con is almost beyond belief. I am absolutely gobsmacked. Shearonink (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• I ...I don't even have words. Can't believe it went on for so long too. And so many edits! Sad that yet another early admin has betrayed the community's trust. Alas, I fear they won't be the last :( Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• I was the local CU who first saw this when the scrutineers reached out. I’m confident that there are more accounts, but because of the limitations of the tool we won’t be able to find them. This was clearly calculated and manipulative and is quite frankly the worst socking I’ve seen in terms of abusing trust in my time on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's OK. I never trusted him. Martinevans123 (talk)
    • Does (could) the tool need to be improved? Britishfinance (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Britishfinance, It does, and I am working on it. It was built from scratch, and in a hurry - so had some limitations. SQL^{Query me!} 23:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Britishfinance: much of it is that the timeline of activity that can be examined is short, in accordance with the WMF global data retention guidelines. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see, so it is only at times like ArbCom !votes when several accounts are simultaneously active that it becomes apparent? Perhaps WMF rules could be re-examined, especially for syops. Sone of Edgar181’s techniques of co-ordination with their socks go get third party accounts blocked seemed pretty onerous? Britishfinance (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
          • Britishfinance, I don't think (nor do I agree with) WMF changing the rules regarding global data retention. There may be other options, however. Waggie (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
            • @Waggie and Xaosflux:, That wasn't the limiting factor Tony mentioned in any case. I'd be happy to discuss them elsewhere if you're interested. SQL^{Query me!} 23:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
              • @SQL and TonyBallioni: when I first read this, I saw that Edgar181 had as least admitted what they did, something different from many others who continue to deny the obvious. But their replies since then, well even accepting people often respond poorly to stress, have not been a good look for them. I'm guessing that Edgar181 also did not identify any additional accounts which hadn't already been discovered when they admitted? Nil Einne (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I'm not sure - I never interacted with them, the committee did. I haven't heard of them admitting to any others. SQL^{Query me!} 03:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't felt this angry over anything related to Wikipedia since... well, not that long ago actually... but the point is that this angers me greatly, especially compounded by the brazen dismissive comments he sees fit to post on his talk page. He just doesn't seem to have the faintest idea of how serious this is and what damage he's done. Anyway, I'd better switch off for the night now, before I say something I regret (which I nearly did at his talk page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  I was holding out a faint hope initially that there might be some kind of reasonable (or reasonably stupid) explanation. Instead we get the chilling admission that he's been screwing with the entire community for fourteen years - for fun. This kind of thing totally undermines the community's trust in each other, especially in admins. You're entirely right to be angry. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• What the FuCK????????? One of the very last people I'd think would be socking. Whats next- Drmies is actually 5 different LTAs? 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • And looking at the socks, about 4 of them are established users, and have been on the project for over a decade. And his response, which is basically "It was funny lol"- What? Coming from a wiki historian, this is one of the most egregious cases of socking I've ever seen. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• That we had an admin ignorant enough about how things work that he thought he could vote multiple times under these aliases and not get detected -- that's a big part of why this is so distressing. Good job, scrutineers! EEng 23:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • EEng, FWIW, I have gone back over the previous SecurePoll elections, and it appears that this is the first one he has tried to screw with at least. SQL^{Query me!} 00:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Arb members, involved checkusers and scrutineers, a big thank you! Please create a page at the cu wiki so that all of the checkusers and stewards can continue to investigate and seek out other existing accounts and look for others in the future. The stewards also need the data to look at possible sock accounts at other projects.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Berean Hunter, see my last edit on cuwiki to my userspace. Feel free to move the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I started to but someone has beat me to it. link
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I will also note that the Arbitration Committee ran several checks and we have a dedicated file on Edgar now, which includes checkuser data, an assessment on on-wiki interactions, and some confidential evidence. Mkdw ^talk 17:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I called "Gnome de plume" the "best user name I've seen in a while" on Wikipediocracy about ten days ago. Pity to lose that one... Of course, election fraud should be treated just as severely as falsification of footnotes — one of the greatest violations of community trust imaginable. Indef is the correct result, the only reasonable response. Every voter in Arbcom elections should be checkusered as a matter of course if it is not being done already... Carrite (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Carrite, the scrutineers caught four of the accounts during scrutineering, where all voters CU data is reviewed. They requested local CUs to confirm the results, and that is when the sysop account and others were discovered, and then referred to ArbCom after review. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I personally think all admin accounts should be CU'd right now, but I doubt the WMF, or the community would approve of that.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 01:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Adding on, this of course now casts a shadow over the rest of the admins. For all we know, I could be operating 30 socks just for shits and giggles. I sadly don't know, other than running immediate CU on us admins, how this shadow can be lifted.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 02:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Trying to not get on my soapbox here, but this is why I always oppose any RFA on any wiki if there is a history of any sort of dishonesty or socking. --Rschen7754 03:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  I doubt it too, but maybe requiring all RfA candidates to agree to a check, given that we already expect them to disclose any alt accounts, would be more feasible. – Joe (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  I think this would be problematic: you could just not use that alternate account for X days (not wanting to post the exact number onwiki) and then CU would turn up nothing. I also worry that this could be misused to basically exert political control over the candidate. --Rschen7754 07:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• He's also a sysop on Commons. There is a discussion here: [12] So in this case, passing on the data to cuwiki and checkuser-l would be especially important. --Rschen7754 01:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: [13] is also happening. SQL^{Query me!} 02:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Now indef-ed on Commons (where votestacking took place) and Wikidata (where any undisclosed use of multiple accounts is prohibited). --Rschen7754 07:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Bloody. Fucking. Hell. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, add me to the list of "I don't get it, and I recall positive interactions with at least three of these accounts." Baffling behavior. Sounds like he just couldn't help himself. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Considering the back and forth on User talk:Edgar181; you folks may want to consider blocking talk page access. — Ched (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Why he is of all people did this? How could he?! I am disappointed. Masum Reza^📞 02:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• It is certainly upsetting that someone would do this. But understand; it's not surprising it would happen to Wikipedia. We are woefully ill equipped to protect the project against such bad actors. Edgar is by far not the only bad actor on this project. There was another one in the not too distant past who maintained abuse of the system for many years without outright detection. This is not an isolated case. Since our tools are so ill equipped to detect such abuses, they will continue for the indefinite future. In some ways this project is quite advanced. In others, it is extremely undeveloped. This is one of those cases that falls into the latter's area of ability to detect it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  The tools worked fine, and were adequately equipped to identify the abusive accounts. It is the policies and principles under which we operate that create the opportunity for this sort of situation. The global privacy policy doesn't permit widescale investigation of random accounts without some sort of justification; in fact, English Wikipedia has one of the more liberal checkuser practices, but even *we* need a reason to checkuser accounts. We also operate under a principle of assuming good faith; there was no reason to think any of the accounts involved were acting in bad faith, although knowing what we know now, it's clear that at times the accounts were operating inappropriately. It strikes me that the person behind these accounts made a conscious decision to let the cat out of the bag, so to speak; anyone who has been an admin for this length of time, or for that matter who has edited for almost 15 years, should have known that the multiple votes would have been caught during vote scrutineering. The sudden creation of multiple new accounts, after not having created any new ones for 10 years, also points to someone who was going out with a bang.

  It's one of the worst abuses, but we did have one event where it was identified that someone wasn't only socking, but actually had two admin accounts. Other admins have been caught socking before, as well; the Arbitration Committees in place at the time of those desysops have either just desysopped and left it to the community to deal with the socking behaviour, have had the matter brought to their attention after the socking had been addressed, or have done the blocks themselves. I don't really think that's a problem, either, although I do personally prefer to leave it to the community where possible. Risker (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  What blows my mind is that, of the listed socks in the ArbCom ruling, were the longstanding accounts (some since 2006/2007) with edit counts of 17K, 78K, 1.8K, 4.7K, 15K...maintaining the charade must have cost enormous amounts of time and energy. And to what end.

  Your point about the multiple recent accounts makes sense though, that the sockmaster must have known that the socks would get caught and his behavior brought out into the open. I suppose a long-term con might get wearing and the con artist could get tired of maintaining their shell game. Shearonink (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I disagree that the tools worked fine, and that it's the policies that are the problem. It's somewhere inbetween. I can imagine a wikipedia where bots have checkuser capability. Imagine such a bot run by the WMF that routinely checks contributors to RFAs, RFBs, AFDs, MFDs, etc., etc. and only alerts/records on suspicious behavior. No such tools currently exist. If they had, this would have been caught more than a decade ago. We already have a tool that checks for duplicate votes on RfA from the same account. Having a bot checkuser such things without announcing the results and only alerting (off wiki) when there is an issue would prevent such abuses in the future. We of course have no way of knowing if such abuses are rare or if they are rampant. It would be interesting to run such a bot against, say, a month worth of AFDs and see what sort of results it found. Since we have no data, we have no way of knowing if this is a total non-issue or a rampant problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

    Imagine such a bot run by the WMF that routinely checks contributors to RFAs, RFBs, AFDs, MFDs, etc., etc. and only alerts/records on suspicious behavior. I think Risker is right. Even if such a bot existed, the problem would still be that it was operating in a way that didn't align with established policies and principles, all of which lean toward protecting user privacy. The moment you are doing routine checks of userdata, the potential for that data to be misused or privacy to be breached becomes real. I think there would be monumental opposition to such a move. Grandpallama (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

    • A bot run by the WMF. What part of the data stream here is outside of the WMF what is more at risk than what is already being collected by the WMF? The bot would be looking at data collected by the WMF, and sending alerts about usernames for a human to check. That's it. What's the threat vector here? We've just had a rather large breach of trust by one of the more trusted members of the community. This breach went undetected for 13 years, and would have continued to go undetected had the user not intentionally done something to uncover themselves. Our response to this is to say our procedures worked the way they should and there's nothing to worry about? Ok, so when is the breach enough that we dare to respond to it in at least as much to determine if the problem is singular or far more widespread. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Just to be clear, Hammersoft, the WMF interpretation of the privacy policy is such that scrutineers for global elections (e.g., WMF Board of Trustees) may strike votes of socks, but have been discouraged from reporting those socks to their home wiki, and those scrutineers are not permitted to put their "found" data on CU-wiki. I'll also point out that the "breach" you're talking about is a violation of local policy, and that there are lots of admins with multiple accounts (including multiple admin accounts, if we include the ones that run adminbots). Frankly, I don't want to give the WMF that level of authority in the day-to-day activities of this or any other project. We've just been through a very challenging situation where the WMF took on responsibilities that are rightfully the community's, and it did not end well for anyone involved. Risker (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
        • <bouncing this to my talk page, as this is drifting away from a discussion about the motion> --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Only ever had positive interactions with this editor. This is strange and it feels like I'm dreaming honestly. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 03:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• It's pretty much all been said above, but ... wow. I certainly didn't see this coming. —DoRD (talk)​ 03:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I've never used a rude word once in all my 13 years and 100K edits, but I can certainly forgive Blade for his outburst. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I can't imagine anything more typically Wikipedian than a disgraced and disbarred admin intervening to stop an edit war on his talk page. Never change, Wikipedia. Lepricavark (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• This is truly upsetting, even more so with the barefaced ridiculous confession on his talkpage. Thanks to the scrutineers and ArbCom for acting swiftly. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I think what surprises me most is that he didn't outgrow the "fun and games". After 14 years, you'd think adulthood would kick in and say it's just not a mature way to act. — Ched (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  This. More than anything, this. This is just ... crazy. 14 years, some 200k accounts. And the reason is just "eh, for the lulz", like some 4chan blithering idiot. Ravensfire (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  • I could forgive the old sock accounts, if they were no longer active. But half of them were only created recently. And then using them (presumably the older ones) to try and stack the ArbCom election?! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• This action for many years is totally preposterous. Can't really imagine this. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Other users admitted on having other accounts, like Struway who lost a password and had to start again under Struway2 but that's fine since the original Struway did not edit again because of the password reason. This however seems illogical since I've seen some of the sock user pages which does not link anywhere, unlike Struway's userpage which does. Another example, Oshwah, admits on having alternate accounts (or Doppelgänger) but that seems fine as well as they are linked to the original Oshwah account fairly. Edgar181 has not which is how many users are surprised by this. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 11:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If you haven't already, you might want to glance at the official rules. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes I have had a look at the page you'd mentioned @DoRD: which strengthens the knowledge that Edgar181 did not follow this properly.
• Using the RfA archive search, it seems that Edgard181 has voted atleast in 39 RfAs, Deli nk in 50 RfAs, PCock in 3 RfAs, Gnome de plume in 4 RfAs, TimBuck2 in 3 RfAs and Slideshow Bob in 2 RfAs. --Pudeo (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ...and, assuming they always voted the same way (a big assumption of course) how many of those RfAs passed by less than, what, six, seven !votes...? ——SN54129 12:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Serial Number 54129: There are only six interactions listed in requests for adminship, the recent two were multiple opposition positions, the others historical (from 2008). –xeno^talk 14:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI: WP-space crossover of the known accounts with a significant number of edits (Note: Long run time) —DoRD (talk)​ 12:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I doubt I’m alone in having extremely deep concerns regarding the question of how many other cases of this type of extreme bad faith admin abuse remain undetected. Regardless of the actual answer being zero or numerous, I believe it is absolutely crucial to establish the truth to assure good faith editors that the project is not deeply compromised by this type of blatant gamesmanship. In the wake of this disturbing case, I submit that a thorough review is required, not only of how the admin sockmaster could have gotten away with this for so long, but of the account integrity of literally every highly active administrator. To fail to do so, as I see it, will leave a lingering stench that will make assuming good faith 100% of the time difficult for some percentage of the vast majority of Wikipedia-en editors who are not administrators. How exactly this can be accomplished is of course debatable, but the efforts, by a vetted team of motivated editors, should begin as quickly as possible. Jusdafax (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You might find the highly inactive administrators more of a risk? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Point taken. Review every admin account. I have just been reviewing this character’s editing history. Horrifying is the nicest thing I can say, since I don’t use swear words on Wikipedia. I’ll add this, that this case shakes me more completely than anything I have encountered since I starting editing here. Jusdafax (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The whole "did it for fun" thing reminds me a bit of the Qworty manifesto: "Qworty is a shtick. Qworty is an entertainment, an annoyance, a distraction, a put-on, a reading experience, a performance, a series of ironies, an inversion that you do or do not get." It would not surprise me if both individuals were merrily editing away with new accounts as we speak. 28bytes (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and I have proposed a community site ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to deal with just that possibility. Jusdafax (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Which was shut down only half an hour later and a handful of comments, "as there is wide agreement" against it!! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Which has since been reopened. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • And now closed again. Waggie (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • So be it. I disagree with the reasoning and the rapidity of the close(s), but am ready to move on from AN/I. Jusdafax (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
      • That's really unfortunate, and I'm disappointed that was closed off by a functionary. The community should make its own decision about what *it* wants to do, because that creates an additional roadblock should the Arbitration Committee develop an incomplete memory that allows a real problem to return; what today's Arbcom says it would do does not bind future Arbcoms. There's no problem with a belt-and-suspenders approach to this level of abuse, and I hope Primefac will reconsider. Risker (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
        • I just !voted in the discussion anyway, close be damned, and I encourage others to do the same. We have a very clear policy, supported by a nearly unanimous RfC, that these discussions stay open for 24 hours, so everyone can participate. There are plenty of good reasons to put the unblock decision into the community's hands rather than Arbcom's. I'm rather disappointed to see multiple admins completely ignore the policy consensus. Highly irregular. – Levivich 18:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
        • (ec) Yes I think Primefac's close rather missed the point - of course Edgar can only be unblocked via an appeal to Arbcom, but that discussion was whether he should have to go to the community as well, in the unlikely event of his appeal being successful.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Looks like everyone got together and figured out the best way forward. It's now at WP:AN. Thanks all. – Levivich 19:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• The scale of this socking is just staggering. Deli nk has 78,000 edits?? I'm appalled an admin could behave in this way and sadly it's made me start wondering how many of the 1200-odd other admins could be doing a similar thing.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• RIP Edgar. I do think our systems for detecting worked out fine, short of mandatory CU at all RFAs theres not much we can do to catch this stuff. With the exception of some 3rr and the votestacking mentioned above it appears the material damages are limited and its just an optics issue. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 14 years and 15 different accounts? So worked out fine, yeah. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Before I was an admin Edgar181 was my go-to admin for revdelete and other unpleasant actions. Helpful, knowledgeable, polite, and created good content. I abjectly mourn the loss caused on multiple levels by this gamesmanship. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Just goes to show you never really know someone. I mean look at Martinevans123. For all we know he could be a serial killer. In fact I think it's quite likely. EEng 04:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  I've long thought that many Wikipedia editors, with myself as Exhibit A, bear more resemblance to William Chester Minor than is comfortable to acknowledge. For my part, I can see a lot of Jeremy Bentham in myself; that and a healthy life, such as it were, are remarkably incompatible. (Though you, of all people, would know why I'd be sour to living for an unusually long time...) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Jeremy Bentham? Nah, I'm more Jeremy Bamber. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is very sad. My father (PhD in OChem) has talked at length about how Edgar's work here has helped him and his students. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• What. – The Grid (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Ignoring some (minor, for non-financial reasons?) vote manipulation, that's a big loss for Wikipedia, he was a great contributor. Aethyta (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like to give a big thumbs up to our scrutineers - given that side of the system must be taken on trust (albeit to extremely trustworthy types!) it's reassuring to see it work, along with our local CUs. But a +1 to the exhaustion - one of the socks has 5 times the edits I had when I applied to RfA, jesus. Can someone who knows such things let me know whether IPs for confirmed widescale socks are preserved somewhere, so the CUs can spot a returning undetected account and he can't just wait out the 90 days? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear checkusers have a wiki for these sorts of things and theoretically arbwiki can also be used to save this kind of information -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 21:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  I assumed cu-wiki would be the logical place - it was more just making sure that they did so (obviously they couldn't keep it on en-wiki) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Mkdw says there's a file, and CUs keep linking to pages I can't access when they discuss cases among themselves. Pretty sure three months deadline is for run-of-the-mill data, not case evidence. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Permanent ban without a chance of appeal, if it were up to me. There's no scenario in which this user deserves a second chance, any future consideration on the same would be further waste of time. Strongly object any argument suggesting they were still a net positive. Their edit count gives no information on how many edits from other prospective editors each of their AfD vote-stacking, edit-war gaming, etcetera has lost. With the amount of trust we put on admins particularly with respect to handling problematic non-established users, the fact that one of them can be this terrible raises a lot of questions. I was almost completely sold on NOBIGDEAL, but this calls for reconsideration; I'd say RFAs just got that much harder to pass, for a few months at least. I don't see why the CUs can't be trusted with the responsibility of vetting every admin once a year. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Usedtobecool: So, did you oppose the decision (of a similar case) at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others#Amendment_request:_OccultZone_and_others_(April_2017)? In my opinion there may be 50% possibility that Edgar181 will go like this (and 20% that Edgar181 will never appeal, and another 20% that Edgar181 will continue socking - that would happen in its extreme).--GZWDer (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting here that the Ombudsman Committee, charged with investigating concerns about breaches in the privacy policy by checkusers, ruled that it was a violation of the privacy policy for checkusers to routinely check non-admins granted IPBE on a periodic basis. I am certain that the suggestion that all *administrators* be routinely checked would result in removal of the tools from any CU who carried it out. This is a global policy, not a local one, and as a Checkuser myself, there's no way I'm going to go there. Risker (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

    To clarify, my point is that we can or need to be able to trust CUs with the responsibility because it seems to be needed. I am not saying the current policy allows that, or the community necessarily will if it doesn't. @GZWDer:, my only opinion on anything remotely related to Wikipedia, before 2019, was -- "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. I wish I could give back in some way." Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 20:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Comment I must say I'm genuinely shocked and disappointed to see Edgar181 of all people banned for this kind of conduct. One thing I think its important to note here is that these were hardly troll accounts, all of the long-standing accounts with thousands of edits were long-term constructive editors for many years. Edgar181 (and indeed ChemNerd) were key participants in WikiProject Chemistry, and the loss to the project from this can't be underestimated. While there were certainly some pretty egregious examples of abusing multiple accounts (swaying deletion discussions and policy debates etc) these were few and far between as a proportion of the total edits. While this behaviour certainly warrants a ban, I'd like to think the community would be open to letting him back in at some point if he could satisfactorily guarantee that it would not be repeated. That said, he may not be back - as User:Risker notes above he seems to have gone out of his way to get busted for this, creating 6 additional accounts just in the last couple of months and using multiple socks to vote in an ArbCom election that he would have well known to be scrutinised. I guess he felt that he had done his time at Wikipedia and for whatever reason preferred to get kicked out in a scandal rather than retiring gracefully. Meodipt (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Meodipt, Edgar left in the most destructive way possible. The creation of six new accounts in 2019 after a decade of not creating new accounts? This is a premeditated crime. They made sure we'd be questioning literally everyone and everything. They undermined our trust in each other. This was a profoundly hostile move. There is no coming back from this, IMO. --valereee (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Much as I'd like to disagree with you, given the circumstances there is not much to say really is there. I can only assume that he had anticipated being busted for this years ago but it hadn't happened and he finally decided to force the issue. Still, it is a shame to see (i) the loss of such a valuable and experienced editor, and (ii) as you say, this is very corrosive for community trust and it is a pity he decided to end it this way. Meodipt (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Actually... "after a decade of not creating new accounts" You don't know. CU data is automatically destoryed once the action is 90 days old: You can't go further than that. If you try that, you see "Oh poor kid, that account is too old. They last did something (date time) and you are too late." sort of message. — regards, Revi 10:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don’t really see what the big deal is. A good faith editor engaged in boundary pushing for his own amusement, and finally got popped for it. Too bad. We’re probably not any better off for catching it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'd agree with you, Swarm, were it not for things like opposing an RfA multiple times. That's a nasty thing to do to someone for fun, and kind of a big FU to the community and to the trust in each other that is necessary in order for us to work together anonymously over the internet to write an encyclopedia. It's weird that someone would put so much time into something, and yet care so little about it. He must have understood that the "big bang" exit is exactly the kind of thing that erodes the entire community's trust in itself, because let's face it, if we know about seven, there's probably seventy. For all we know, there are only three people on Wikipedia: you, me, and Edgar. – Levivich 00:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• This is clearly someone who had decided to get caught, for whatever reason. No new socks for ten years, then six in 2019? Whatever is going on in Edgar's life, it's something that has made them decide to burn bridges with Wikipedia. --valereee (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: It's very likely that there're more accounts created, but they are disposable and currently stale to check.--GZWDer (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not surprised. There's more mega-sock masters out there, then anyone will ever know. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  It would be deeply sad if it weren't so destructive. I can't even imagine how barren a life must be for this kind of thing to qualify as 'my own entertainment.' I guess that's what vandalism is, at its heart. Depressing. --valereee (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  GoodDay is pretty much bang on. There have been sock nests before. There will be sock nests in the future. We've had longterm editors caught socking before, in some cases over several years. We've had admins socking before, getting caught, and almost invariably getting blocked/banned as well as desysopped. The project doesn't rise and fall on the activities of these few accounts - prolific as this bunch of socks was, it's the equivalent of a few weeks of random editing spread out over 15 years, and we have several reports that the quality of much of the mainspace editing was very high. The actual *harm* to the project is very limited. The biggest impact is to make people rethink their values system as it applies to Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Goddamn. Last week, when I decided to think of a trustworthy sysop at Commons to ask about rollback, guess whose name came to mind for also being a sysop here. Holy crud, can't believe this one. Home Lander (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Holy Shit! MDaxo (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Tony, User:SQL, User:Cyberpower678 I have seen on several RfAs, admins whacking socks who voted. I had assumed that CUs are run on all of the RfA voters. Is it not the case ? were the CU running selective checks there ? If the CU checks on RFA voters aren't mandatory yet then I think it should be made mandatory. Other than that folks must find out ways to avoid a repeat of such cases. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, that's not the case - good reasons are needed to run a checkuser on anyone. I'd be very uncomfortable with a large-scale roll out of checkuser in the way you propose. One of the principles underpinning the use of checkuser is that it's kept to a minimum given that the tool reveals private information about contributors. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Per Risker notes above in this section: " The global privacy policy doesn't permit widescale investigation of random accounts without some sort of justification; in fact, English Wikipedia has one of the more liberal checkuser practices, but even *we* need a reason to checkuser accounts. We also operate under a principle of assuming good faith; there was no reason to think any of the accounts involved were acting in bad faith, although knowing what we know now, it's clear that at times the accounts were operating inappropriately." (To complement her comment on "enwiki has one of the more liberal rules - for example Korean Wikipedia requires any and all checks to be discussed on-wiki RFCU venue, and any checks performed without the discussion is going to be a serious wiki-drama. (I've heard German Wikipedia does quite similar thing but I don't speak German.))

  The global policy Risker mention is m:CU#Use of the tool which specifically notes "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, spamming, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects". Also "There must be a valid reason to check a user." - Ombudsman Commission (who investigates all CU, OS abuse complaints) does not allow IPBEs to be checked routinely to verify they are indeed on blocked range (Ctrl+F "granted IPBE on a periodic") - That kind of wholesale CU is probably the fastest way to get their CU bits speedily removed. — regards, Revi 11:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  User:-revi and Nick-D, thanks for the comments. Based on the CU policy, now I believe the risk of my proposal are higher than rewards, accordingly I have struck it off. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Harmless fun? Folks, I've been thinking about this, and I see most people seem to be accepting Edgar181's claim that this was all just a game, just a bit of fun, no harm intended. While I admire your assumptions of good faith, I don't believe it for a moment. Using socks to cast multiple opposes in RfAs? That's not fun, that's just malicious. Using socks to stack deletion discussions? That's not fun either, it's cynical abuse of our key ethos of consensus. Multiple votes in ACE? Again, deliberate, calculated, malicious abuse. And whether the ACE socking was intended as an out as some assume, I'm not so sure. Even the cleverest can get too cocky and make a simple mistake - like, for example, forgetting that all ACE votes are checkusered and assuming that checkuser is only used if there's prior reason for suspicion (as it usually is). Right now, I wouldn't believe a word that came out of his mouth. And I absolutely can not see any good faith in this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah...he's a con-man who ran a long con. 14 years is a long time to continually not tell the truth. Shearonink (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, whether or not he meant to be harmless fun or malicious, I feel you miss the point that we all agree his trust went from 100 to -10 in no time flat. Not one person here thinks he should ever be trusted after that. Hell I think all the admins, functionaries and crats, should be CU’d right now to see who else is fucking around. —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 12:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, no, I got that point 100%. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Some of them were never schooled in professional ethics or they missed class that day.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

    Berean Hunter, it's sad we even need classes on ethics these days. You'd think it would be common sense. —CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 15:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

    One of the only editors to ever be topic banned from the Reference Desk is an anon who used to add a few different names to the end of their messages along with their IP signature, after someone noticed they weren't only doing this, they were also sometimes replying to one of the others with stuff like "yes X is right". I think many of us always thought the IP was the same editor and never understood they would sometimes have different names at the end, and just never noticed this behaviour. Note that discussions in the reference desk are not formally closed. I guess theoretically they could have swayed some readers by this manner of replying but frankly I'm not sure it actually achieve much. And the editor claimed they were an engineer. My impression from what the editor said and did, including after they were topic ban, was this could very well be correct. It also seemed to me they probably weren't young I would say at least their 40s maybe even 50s or older. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is anyone from Arbcom able to comment whether Edgar181 offered any assistance in identifying unidentified socks? Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • He did not. Katie^talk 17:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nil Einne, his comment to Arbcom was almost identical to his comment on his userpage. Worm^TT(talk) 18:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• I know some others have likely weighed this into the discussion, but probably the most disturbing takeaways from this are that #1, Edgar181 had been using his sockpuppets even before his RfA; #2, he failed to disclose this until just recently, when confronted by ArbCom election scrutineers; and #3, he had the audacity to engage in ballot stuffing on multiple occasions, even when one would normally assume that he had outgrown the practice. And to think that the Od Mishehu case six months prior is only somewhat accurate to the second point. ToThAc (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand why any experienced Wikipedian finds any of this surprising at all. The bar at RFA has been consistently lowered over the years, and knowledge of how to evade sock detection has grown. There once was a time when RFA candidates were expected to have demonstrated their commitment to Wikipedia via producing a GA or FA, and one got to know the character of those people well during the review process. I've not been surprised by anyone I nominated at RFA. And we had a prolific sock once gain the sysop tools, who I was 95% certain at the time of his RFA was a sock. There is another I suspect, but I won't bring forward an SPI without 100% certainty. I follow another prolific sockmaster who has likely voted multiple times in the elections. My (fake) block log should demonstrate why I won't identify socks until I have 100% certainty, and just keep an eye on them instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Edgar passed RfA in 2006? – Levivich 19:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I know that. RFA got tighter for a few years after that, and then became lax again, so my point is ... imagine how much more of a chance we have of this today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to argue with you but in 2007 there were 920 RfAs; in 2008, 594; in 2009, 355. The few years after 2006 were the boom years. Since then, RfA has steadily declined: the lowest year was last year with 18 RfAs. Meanwhile, if you look at admin who've been caught socking: Edgar became an admin in 2006. Od Mishehu in 2007. Cirt in 2008. The conclusion I draw from this is that the RfA bar has consistently increased, not decreased, over the years, and that most of the problem users who have been caught are from the early days, not recent additions. One might conclude that means the "problem users" are the old users, not the new ones. But I conclude something different: we only catch sockfarms when the sockmasters, after a decade+ of socking, get tired of it and essentially give themselves up (as apparently happened here with Edgar). That's a sad thought, and so I guess I do agree with your underlying point: imagine how much more of this is still going on today. – Levivich 19:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, the lowest year was last year but the number of successful RfA, which is the most important figure was 10. In very recent years we have done a lot to reduce the number of failed RfA. There is a faint chance that this might have put off some legitimate contenders but that would be (IMO) acceptable collateral damage. I do not necessarily conclude that the bar has consistently increased, but since the December 2015 reform, the number of voters has doubled, and with it, the the scrutiny of candidates has possibly becomre more thorough. This has been demonstrated by a failed recent RfA which I nominated - only someone directly affected could have brought the issue to light. It's not something nominators are likely to know unless they examine every single one of a candidate's thousands of edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  Sandy, I am aware you are a highly experienced user who has seen a lot, but the statement that RFA is "lax" is, frankly, laughable. I agree the pendulum swung way hard around 2009, and has moved back somewhat towards more reasonable standards since then, but it is still way harder to pass than it was in 2006 or before. I'm also disturbed to see so many users just assuming that many if not most admins are secretly socking. I have no doubt Edgar was not the only one, but let's not get drawn into a moral panic here and start assuming everyone's a sock puppeteer. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  I agree that panic isn't warranted (it remains a lot of work to build up so many long-term user accounts). The insidious aspect, though, is that it doesn't take many misbehaving users (administrators or not) for the community to lose faith. I don't believe most people think there are many similar situations (for some value of "many"), but most Wikipedia discussions don't have more than a handful of participants. Active co-ordinated efforts, either due to sockpuppets or multiple people working together can easily influence many small decisions. It's discouraging to know that the smallest edit can result in a long, protracted discussion with argumentative editors, and on top of that, the editors might be all the same person or represent the same interests. isaacl (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Od Mishehu was caught by accident. His username came up in the CU tool when I was doing a sleeper check for a different sockmaster. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Who is panicking? I mentioned that I see no reason that this news is surprising; the scenario was always, and remains, a possibility, with increasing chances as sockmasters learn more about how to evade scrutiny via the WP:BEANS effect. Levivich you are discussing quantity and I am discussing quality. Also, your analysis does not include all desysopped sockmasters.

  At RFA, we can pile on as many questions as we want, and pretend we are scrutinizing candidates via various rubrics, but we can't scrutinize integrity or character in candidates who know what checklist to complete before approaching RFA. We get to know candidates when we engage them in article space for a very long time and see how they react to the daily trials of editing. Having engaged an admin sockmaster in article space is why I was fairly certain of who he was when he came before RFA, but I was not willing to speak up then, nor would I now about the socks I follow. And why I only nominated candidates at RFA whose character and integrity I knew well, regardless of whether they had checked all the boxes. Today, we need admins desperately, so we are less inclined to expect that they have engaged content creation as we did during one period at RFA.

  Beeblebrox, I'm not laughing and I'm certainly not panicking; I hope my explanation above suffices. I don't believe we have scores of admins socking, but the possibility that we have plenty is there. RFA could do with less checking of the boxes, and we deceive ourselves if we think passing RFA after checking the right boxes (but rarely engaging article space) is giving a good indication of trustworthiness. You acknowledge that RFA was way harder in 2009, so we seem to be in agreement; IIRC, most of my nominations were in the 2008 to 2010 period. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I maybe could've parsed out my reply better, I didn't mean to imply that you personally were panicking, but rather that the general air of some of the community's response (i.e. "let's CU every single admin right now") were trending in that direction. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox and (not atypical for me), I could have phrased my post tighter ... I believe we were referring to the more or less the same time period when (I thought) RFA was tougher. Does anyone care about content creation, reward seekers who use DYK or Wikicup, or check for copyvio any more? We are short on editors and on admins, so we can't care about everything as we did during that period. And in today's environment, I don't think a "not a significant content contributor" oppose would fly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Re "was a time when RFA candidates were expected to have demonstrated their commitment to Wikipedia via producing a GA or FA". There have been times when some people have opposed candidates for lack of a GA or FA, and even RFAs that have failed where one of the common oppose reasons was the lack of an FA or GA. But I'm pretty sure we have never had an era where RFA candidates were expected to have a GA or FA, and if there ever was a period of a few months where all the candidates who passed had a GA or FA I'd be obliged if someone could tell me when that was. In early 2008 after Rollback was unbundled the de facto criteria increased to require all RFA candidates to have added to the pedia and it was no longer sufficient just to be a defender of it. Edgar181 passed in the era when "good vandalfighter" was a route to adminship, but that alone hasn't been possible for over a decade. Content contributions are neeeded at RFA, I doubt someone could pass now if they couldn't show a diff where they had added info to an article cited to a reliable source. ϢereSpielChequers 12:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I doubt someone could pass now if they couldn't show a diff where they had added info to an article cited to a reliable source. WSC, did your fingers really type those words, or did a gremlin take over your keyboard? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is a low bar, lower than DYK. But I have voted in a lot of RFAs over the last eleven years and had a brief look at almost all of the successful ones. I'm pretty confident that a candidate with zero content contributions would fail now and would have failed at any time since the unbundling of Rollback. I'm also confident that a candidate would fail if their only content contributions were unsourced or cited to an unreliable source. Whether the Opposes for insufficient content contributions are 2% or 20% is partly a cyclical thing, sometimes there are a group of opposers at RFA who expect more, sometimes far more, content contributions. If there are also other reasons to oppose this can make the difference between success and failure at RFA. I'm also pretty sure that some voters standards re content contributins depend on the specific areas that the candidate is offering to wield the mop in. Some people are happy to have "good vandalfighters" have the ability to block vandals but have a higher contribution standard for people who want to delete other people's work, let alone block regulars. Of course reasons for opposing at RFA are complex and the voting is cumulative. So if 20% of the voters think a year's contributions is insufficient tenure, and 20% think that one example of citing to a reliable source is insufficient content contributions, then that RFA could be anywhere from a 60% no consensus to an 80% pass depending on the extent to which those two groups of 20% overlap. ϢereSpielChequers 11:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Well, I was one of those who passed RFA several months after rollback was unbundled on a platform of being a vandal fighter with no DYK/GA/FA to my name... Regards SoWhy 11:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. And your answer to Q2 does mention that, along with your contributions to List of NCIS episodes. If my understanding of the mood at RFa is correct, you and I didn't meet everyone's minimum standard for content contributions - several of the opposes in your RFA were specifically re Q2. But we met the standard of sufficient voters for a non unanimous pass and that's my reading of RFA in the last 11 years, candidates like you and I were could pass RFA at any time in that era. But it would be unlikely to be unanimous. ϢereSpielChequers 12:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I agree with WSC here. Content creation has long been a factor that is necessary to garner support, the less you have the more opposes you get. In all the RfAs I've studied, if you fall below the low bar of not adding any content - you fail. If you hit that bar, you also still probably fail, but other factors might push you over. Get a few GA / FA and the question is what other areas you've caused problems. Worm^TT(talk) 13:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks that RfA was "tougher" 10+ years ago is a fool. If you don't believe me, go ahead, run for admin right now, see just how *easy* it is nowadays. Sro23 (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a time when an editor who took 118 edits to produce a start class as their most edited article, would get numerous opposes at RFA for not having sufficiently engaged the project at its core. Thanks for making my point about quality vs. quantity; we have a sysop who goes around calling other editors "fools", and you know what they say about arguing with a fool. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Can anyone comment on whether the edits to articles from these accounts should be considered 'safe'? It seems entirely possible that someone who is running multiple socks for laughs would also be adding inaccurate material to articles, including by falsifying references. I'm not familiar with the topic areas the accounts have been editing though. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  I worked with Edgar181 and several other accounts we now learn are his socks on chemistry articles over many years, and while I did not check every cite, the content in that area looks good and the cites I did look at were on-target. DMacks (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

  Nick-D I encountered many of the socks, but almost 15 years worth of checking to find where I encountered them ... <sigh> ... I'd be grateful if anyone can tell me if there is a quicker way for me to do the following: run the editor interaction tools on myself and the socks to first find where we met, and then go check each instance of where I encountered them. Time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  My intersecting contribs with these accounts are extensive, as expected for two almost-15-year editors. It is not possible for me to check every instance that I encountered them, but I found a specific interest in the ((cannabis)) suite of articles (not unusual for a chem focus), no content problems, and my cursory examination reveals that they were a good editor. Cada cabeza es un mundo (inside every head is an entire world), and who knows what led this editor to do this, but having reviewed some of their edits, I am inclined to believe it was exactly as they stated, for whatever reason existed inside that particular head. In fact, had I been participating at RFA when they presented, it is unlikely I would have opposed them (although I rarely supported editors I didn't know quite well). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for these checks Sandy, and for your comment DMacks: both are a relief. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm commenting here again mainly per some of the things Floquenbeam, Beeblebrox, and Risker have said that I think are worth expanding on. A few points:

1. The CU tool works not because we are some masterful geniuses or because it is well-designed, but because human beings aren't very gifted at hiding things long-term (i.e. more than 100 edits). The idea that there are many admins with this level of socking out there isn't likely, because I think we do a pretty good job of identifying undisclosed alts editing in violation of policy. Maintaining this level of deception is very difficult, because most people eventually mess up. I'm sure there are more admins socking out there, but this is not the norm, because if it was, we'd be catching a lot more than we do.
2. Edgar is one of the few people who I don't think falls into the category above. While the technical evidence for these accounts was overwhelming, it also suggests intentional actions to hide other accounts without the need to use proxies, which we have become much better at systematically blocking over the last few years. Basically my point here is that what Floq said about this being exhausting is likely an understatement, and this is someone who was dedicated to maintaining many identities on Wikipedia to a professional degree.
3. The idea that we should CU every admin and every RfA candidate is quite frankly ridiculous. For starters, it wouldn't reveal much of RfA candidates because the biggest concern would be someone coming back after a block, and we can usually only see that for 90 days. Next, even assuming it is within policy, which it isn't, I don't think there would be many, if any, current CUs who would want to participate in the process. Part of the responsibility of functionaries is to help safeguard the privacy of users of this website, and it is something we take very seriously. Routinely checking established users without valid concerns over wrongdoing would very much be counter to this ethos.

TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've been looking up and thinking about what could describe Edgar's manipulativeness and so far the best ones are machiavellianism, grifter, and con-game. And I'm done, I feel like I'm veering in beating a dead horse territory, so I won't comment on this matter anymore. I am just so sorry this has happened. and I am sorry that a once-respected editor has cast such an air of disrepute over the project. Shearonink (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  Huh. I was thinking more asshole. EEng 03:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• +1 .... What the actual fuck ? .... I'm genuinely amazed they got away with it for 14 years straight ...., Needless to say I'm disappointed an admin would sock "for fun"..... Like don't you have better shit to be doing with your time/life ? .... Disappointed. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  Just like any long-term sock "having fun", but this one climbed up the ranks. Kinda like a bent police officer who gets in deeper and deeper as the months and years go on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Suicide of Joe Gliniewicz. EEng 21:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Gives new meaning to the phrase suicide by cop.

• Wow, I ignore AN for a few days, and this happens... -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Rockstone35: Was literally just about to post the exact same comment. Shocking. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• This amount of under-the-radar socking is just...shocking. Especially for an admin. | abequinn^fourteen 02:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• A bit late to this news here, but yeah; I am shocked. Edgar crossed so many lines here, I can't imagine any course of action short of the sanctions imposed. But I will beg to be excused from any sense of satisfaction. He did a lot of good work though none of that is likely to be remembered now. Damn. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Been looking over and thinking about this for days now (already voted in favor of community ban). It seems like the cliche about how "it's always the quiet ones" or "the ones you least expect" is borne out here: being a valued long-term contributor gives you trust from the community that it can be tempting to misuse. But both his many constructive contributions and his immediate confession to (and apology for) sockpuppetry after getting caught indicate that he still thinks he has been a net positive to this project. Which he has, really, since as Risker pointed out above, "The actual *harm* to the project is very limited." I think this raises the issue of whether sockpuppetry has to always be grounds for banning if the sockmaster is a constructive contributor in good standing, and if there was no harm or foul play being perpetrated by the socks (though here there was foul play when the socks tried to vote in ArbCom elections among other things). IntoThinAir (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  If alternate accounts are not being used in an WP:ILLEGIT manner, the argument would be one of legitimate use. I don't know that there has been such a case in the past, or that such a case would even be brought to light if there were reasonable explanations for the segregation and no overlap. –xeno^talk 14:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  IntoThinAir, I'd like to believe we are that reasonable. Although not allowed, I wouldn't advocate sanctions for an editor who's simply edited the same article or different discussions on the same page as different accounts or when logged out. I don't open SPIs for new editors who create socks to give each other wikilove, etcetera. Considering the high regard that Edgar181 seems to have among the community, if they didn't oppose RfAs with multiple accounts, stack AfDs or act on reports by socks in the capacity of a sysop which they apparently did. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 14:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I would be surprised if there weren't more of these, and some may be quite nefarious. Putting on my tin hat, I observe that there are entities with major financial resources and planning horizons that stretch years, if not decades, i.e. governments. It is naive to believe that such entities have not built sock farms on wikipedia, and at least a few are admins. On twitter and facebook, it happens wholesale. On wikipedia, it takes more finesse and patience to do well, but I'm sure it's going on. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
• Wow, I recognise Edgar181 and ChemNerd, but never came across the others. My sentiments are more or less those of Floq: just why? Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

Many thanks to Opabinia regalis and Premeditated Chaos for your service and wishing you well in your release. –xeno^talk 21:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you will all have a busy year, ahead of you. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I would like to thank my 802 Wikipedia colleagues who voted to return me to the Arbitration Committee, as well as the 205 of you who voted to spare me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, But those 600 odd who didn't form an opinion should be cast from this place? Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• So, regarding xeno has elected not to receive administrator permissions - what does this have to do with the arbitration committee (perhaps Xeno can answer!)? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the first time that someone without the sysop bit will sit on ArbCom; I would have expected such a comment, for either outcome. That Xeno is a bureaucrat and functionary makes the point largely moot, as does the fact that it's merely by choice, but not unnecessary. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Amorymeltzer: I agree that being a non-admin is certainly notable - but the wording suggests to me that the committee has the mandate to make administrators. Had any of the other 4 non-admin candidates been elected is there some sort of prerogative being asserted here that such new committee members would in some way be able to elect to receive this access similar to the other access (CU/OS) that is in the domain of the committee? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Largely answered elsewhere but fwiw I interpreted "has elected not" to be reflective of Xeno's decision, not the Committee's. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  I think whoever wrote the text was just riffing off a note in my on-boarding email that I was as-yet undecided about administrator permissions. I agree that the committee does not have the ability to make new administrators, so something like “has elected not to procedurally request re-adminship at this time” might be better, it could also simply remain silent on the matter. –xeno^talk 03:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for responding quickly :) I think the main reason it was worth clarifying is that I can think of several users who in the right year have a solid shot of getting elected to the committee but would be extremely unlikely to pass an RfA, even if an arb. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply xeno - official arbcom announcements have extra weight around here - just wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page as the last RfC on the topic. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I tried to convince a (true) non-admin to stand for this election (though I don’t think they’d have an issue at RfA so not quite to your point). –xeno^talk 03:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Meh, I don’t really think the non-sysop things a big deal. Xeno has the technical ability to resysop himself at will (policy doesn’t allow it but he could...) and he is eligible for resysop on request. Saying he’s not an admin when he can see deleted revisions at will and have the ability to block people with 24 hours notice is technically true, but not anywhere near the truth in reality.
  Additionally, to xaosflux point: no. An arb who is elected but is not an admin cannot elect to receive the sysop permission. I believe there was an RfC on this (c. 2015-16) and during the 2017 election it was confirmed at BN that bureaucrats would not sysop a non-admin arb without an RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  The RfC was Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC, for the curious. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk)

  I believe dewiki does this (grants admin rights to arbitrators and then takes them away when the term is over), so it could work - but the consensus on enwiki was not to do this at all. --Rschen7754 04:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Noting for the record my administrative privileges have been restored on request, concluding a 90-day sabbatical. –xeno^talk 05:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Didn't seem like a "sabbatical" when you indulged us in this charade. [14]. Or are you claiming there is no connection to your decision to reclaim your Admn. tools? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Alternatively, you are being overly pedantic and confrontational. There's no harm in requesting community feedback and there's no harm in asking for the restoration of the tools. Lepricavark (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  Comments offered by other editors were helpful in my decision-making process, prior to which I had leaned towards remaining without. My candidate statement made it clear that either was a possibility. I use the term sabbatical in its literal sense, “a rest or break from work”. –xeno^talk 18:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Lepricavark: Alternatively? Leaky caldron (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

• In case anyone's wondering, this was just housekeeping and was the intent of the original case. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Glad to see ARBCOM handled this one - it was heading into territory that made it poorly suited for the usual methods Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

• 💰, 💸, furthermore 🤑, perhaps even 💵... notwithstanding 💲! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"Money bag, Flying money, furthermore seeing dollars, perhaps even Money emoji... notwithstanding dollar sign?" I'm not sure 💵 follow. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I had been happy to see this but then I see Money is off to an inauspicious start not being able to recognize Salvidrim's clear as can be message. What kind of clerk will he be if he can't understand such straightforward expression? (j/k of course, congrats Money). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"Money emoji, unfortunately, resigned mere hours after being appointed after being intellectually defeated by Salvidrim, setting the record for shortest clerkship" 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 20:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Congrats! I've had this page on my watchlist since the 2019 ARBCOM elections and it's nice to see some good news. :) Yes, I used an emoticon instead of an emoji. Clovermoss (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• 👋 GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome Money! Let's hope you dont mess up as much as I did dealing with stuff the first few times ;). CodeLyoko^talk 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• (Congratulations! Money Emoji). –Davey2010^Talk 21:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Congratulations Money Emoji, and welcome aboard. – bradv🍁 22:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome to the team --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think we've only crossed paths in copyright related issues but my experience is very positive. Welcome!--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• You'll do great! Congrats! Puddleglum ^2.0 23:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome! SQL^{Query me!} 03:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Money emoji: why have you recused from the Kudpung request? ——SN54129 13:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I normally would not so deeply go into the reasons why, but I see no reason not to in this circumstance- and I like transparency, where it is appropriate.

The person who introduced me to wikipedia and convinced me to edit back when I was a lowly ip in 2015 does not like Kud, and wants to exact revenge on him for some perceived wrong he committed towards them back when they used to edit. This person was overdramatic and annoying and I am no longer friends with them, but they know I have this account and congratulated me on my clerkship irl. They have asked me to make edits on their behalf before, and I have declined because the requests are petty and stupid. So, anticipating them asking me to do something stupid for this Kudpung case, I recused to discourage any nonsense from this person. I'll add that this person is not blocked, and hasn't actually ever been blocked; they scrambled their password and made only 600 edits or so. I'm not going to name them, but it's no one anyone in the community has heard of. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A very nuanced, self-aware response, Money emoji, and I thank you for it. I think it's just earned a Support from me at some random later juncture  ;) ——SN54129 17:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• 👏👏👏 —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm slightly unsure about how this works on pages with related content. The General Sanctions section says "500/30 Rule: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within the area of conflict... On pages with related content, or on primary articles where ECP is not feasible, the 500/30 Rule may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 Rule are not considered edit warring."

WP:A/I/PIA#General sanctions upon related content says "When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place ((ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement)) on the talk page and ((ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice)) as an editnotice to do so. If there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced on related content." The way that reads, you can't revert an IP editor or someone covered by 500/30 until the template and of course the edit notice is placed. Have I read that correctly? Doug Weller talk 13:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't cite the sanction unless you've made notice that the article and/or content is covered by the sanction. There are lots of reasons one could revert an IP for a bad edit, just that your rationale should not be only an ARBPIA violation unless there was already a clear notice of ARBPIA present. It would be rare for any edit which violated ARBPIA would somehow be perfect if only ARBPIA wasn't violated. I will say that you clearly have a specific event in mind, and speaking in the general about a specific event is unlikely to be helpful. If you could include some diffs to show what prompted this concern, you could get better feedback more tailored to helping you work out the problem you are having. --Jayron32 13:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks but I was hoping for a reply from one of the Arbs involved or a clerk. No specific example but one I was concerned with in the past is politicians whose articles are only generally related. I'm assuming that the edit notice and talk page notices are required before reverting for ARBPIA reasons, but just want reassurance that I'm right. On the opposite end, still related to articles generally related, are the edits that try to reverse the location of a place or something that involves only a few words, not a whole paragraph or section. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

For both primary articles and related content, "The presence of the templates is required before the General Sanctions can be enforced". The way I read that, that means you can still revert the IPs for the ordinary reasons without the templates, but they can revert you right back if the templates aren't present. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The edit notice bit worries me as it can be read as imposing 1 revert on the whole article, do you think it could be revised to say "related content" instead? Doug Weller talk 09:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Reping @L235:, didn't preview, sigh. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we definitely will have to fix that. Thanks for spotting. There's still a lot the clerks need to do to implement ARBPIA4 in practice; I've been doing a bit here and there but we're far from done. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, the two American Muslim Congresswomen, both have sections very much related to the conflict, and the conflict sometimes creeps into other sections and of course the lead, so I plan to add an edit-notice so that 500/30 can be enforced as soon as I can. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC) @L235: pinging. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I echo the concerns of GW in the initial statement, over as she said, "removing a sanction that TRM repeatedly violated, without including some sort of replacement." I may somewhat agree that the wording of the initial sanction was problematic and was not effective in curbing uncollegial behavior, and it also is clear that there was little desire by the community at large to enforce the sanction based on its wording. However, there is consensus that there is a problem that needs fixing, and to remove the sanction without a replacement, better worded, one sends the message that TRMs treatment of others is and has always been OK, which is definitely not true. I would have liked to have seen the sanction amended rather than vacated. --Jayron32 13:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  I don’t think us saying that the restrictions we've placed haven't helped and deferring to the community (as well as suggesting another case might be in order if the problem persists) at all implies any lack of a problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• A debacle all-around. But perhaps vacating the sanctions and starting from a clean slate is the best way to go. In wording they were vague, ineffective, and confusing, holding TRM to a standard that no reasonable person could be expected to meet. Still, this may be a fruitless endeavor as it seems TRM has effectively retired.--WaltCip (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  TRM effectively retires frequently. I'm not concerned he'll be gone long. --Jayron32 15:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well I was curious about this so I checked, and the last time TRM went over a month without editing was in 2008. So this is in fact rather unusual for him.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  That may be true, past performance is no guarantee of future performance and all that. It is definitely not the first time since 2008 where he announced his intention to quit. He's retired many times, and been back in short order. Maybe he really is gone. Could be. --Jayron32 15:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think this was the right decision as the sanction clearly was confusing and could not be enforced properly. I don't see why TRM can't be sanctioned for uncivil behaviour in the same way any other editor would be.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I will say, without regard for TRM specifically and just speaking in the general, is that there is a general unwillingness to sanction editors for incivility where such editors have an established presence at Wikipedia, and I saw this sanction (which has proved to be inadequate in hindsight) as an attempt to clarify and add teeth to a civility restriction. There are clearly two ways incivility is handled:

• When a new user or an IP address shows up and calls someone an asshole or something similarly, they are quickly warned and if they repeat the behavior, they are blocked.
• When an established user, who everyone knows is aware of the civility and NPA policies, calls someone an asshole, they will either not be blocked, or if they are blocked, another admin will quickly unblock them and make excuses for their behavior. Paradoxically, the more egregious the violation, the less likely the block is to stick, so calling someone a "fucking asshole" will result in people saying "there's no rule against saying fuck" and thus it is easier to get unblocked if you say "fuck" than if you merely insult someone without using one of the seven deadly words.

• I do want to clarify that TRM has never, to my knowledge, called someone an asshole or a fucking asshole. What they have done is to cast aspersions against people over simple differences of opinion; to use aggressive and insulting language about people's motives or intelligence over any difference of opinion, and to presume that anyone who does things differently than he would is met with scorn and insult. He method of convincing people he's right is not "my way is better because of these reasons" it is "my way is better because your way is stupid" (again, not sure he's ever used the word stupid, but he's said similar things). The use of insult and scorn to win arguments is highly incivil and unproductive and TRM does so often. That sort of behavior is what we need to stop. --Jayron32 16:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have amended my comments above slightly, without changing the general meaning, with better word choices. My original comments can be found in the history. --Jayron32 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right that our approach to civility is inconsistent and wrongheaded. But the community has never ever come to grips with it and that's not a matter for Arbcom.

I'm grateful Arbcom finally removed this problematic sanction that was causing more trouble than it was solving. TRM wrote here on several occasions that he felt it was a stick he was regularly hit with and even, towards the end, he said it made him feel harassed. No wonder he's taken a long wikibreak - and I hope it won't mean retirement now that he can no longer be targeted using this particular sanction. Aside from anything else, the Boat Race is fast approaching, and he normally works like a demon to get our coverage up to standard.

TRM was once a very highly regarded member of this community, with advanced permissions. He is still highly regarded by the many editors he's worked with (helped) on quality content: FAs, FLs, GAs etc. I hope he'll come back and Arbcom and the community will one day recognise they can put all the rest of the sanctions to bed, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dweller: I hold TRM and his dedication to the project in the highest regard even to this day. I merely wish he could do so and also not heap rudeness and scorn upon people he disagrees with. Also, as predicted, he's very much not gone for good. --Jayron32 04:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope TRM does return. As Dweller says, if TRM doesn't improve The Boat Race 2020, a bunch of new editors and IPs will and (with all due respect) they won't do half as good as job at it for the simple reason they're not experienced enough. I always like having him "on tap" to do a featured list (particularly something like Pink Floyd discography which has had several failed FLC attempts), and it has been reassuring for him coming to my defence in the past. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The motion baffles me, not so much what the motion actually is but rather the fact that several arbitrators acknowledged that it's kicking the can down the road, but they voted for it anyway. Like, if Arbcom had said "in hindsight, TRM's behavior is not disruptive so we are vacating the restriction", I would find that unpalatable, but logical. With "we know TRM's behavior is disruptive but we're vacating the restriction anyway, and feel free to file a future case request", I don't know know what to think - arbitration is supposed to "break the back of the dispute", but this seems like Arbcom saying they don't know what to do either. Banedon (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It's Arbcom saying "this restriction has failed to solve the problem, and has actually made things worse so we'll get rid of it for now. We don't have any better ideas at the moment but we'll give it another try if things don't improve." Far from ideal, but better than the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Even then it's still baffling. If Arbcom already knows this result is just going to lead to another case request, why wait till the case request is filed to give it another go? Why not just give it another go right now? If Arbcom is waiting to see "things don't improve", that takes Arbcom's optimism to amazing heights - like, disputes end up at Arbcom because they're intractable, and now Arbcom is closing its eyes and praying the dispute will go away? Sure, there's a nonzero chance it'll go away, but unless TRM stops editing entirely it's just not very likely to happen, and then woe be to whoever files the next case request. As I said, the motion baffles me. Banedon (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think arbcom knows the result is just going to lead to another case request. There is some concern that the restriction is making admins more confused and less willing to enforce our policies and guidelines which already cover a lot of concerns over TRM's behaviour, the way they normally would. There is also some hope that even if admins aren't willing to act unilaterally, maybe the community will be more willing to take it up without the special restriction. No one knows if this will actually happen, maybe many even think it's unlikely. But it seems arbcom felt it was worth giving a try. If it doesn't work, then arbcom will take it up again if necessary. The fact that they're not sure what else to do may be a factor but in a different way. Ultimately if there is nothing that will work, the only solution may be to either tolerate TRM's behaviour that is causing concerns or indef block them. The former, well doesn't need arbcom. The latter, arbcom may have to be the one to pull the plug, but it's clear few want that and as things stand, I don't think they feel it's needed yet. Nil Einne (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Presumably some edits are needed to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Arbitration Committee in light of this decision? EdChem (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making the update, Bradv. EdChem (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Sorry to be a nuisance, but was there any private information here? It wasn't marked as AE, CU, or OS, so the private information provision would be the only other thing it would fall under. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  Though it was not a checkuserblock, there was checkuser evidence involved with post-block sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unicornblood2018/Archive). We also had previously heard (and declined) an appeal from this user in which we had instructed them that they may re-appeal to the Arbitration Committee after six months had elapsed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  This seems out of scope to me unless there was private evidence involved. CU evidence is often involved with blocks, but they're not made as CU blocks either because it's not conclusive or because the CU involved prefers letting the community decide how to handle the socking.

  I'm not really sure a previous committee saying they could appeal again in six months is good grounds for hearing an appeal if there wasn't private information involved. I haven't encountered this user before, but based on what is on their talk page and block log, I really doubt the community at AN or a reviewing admin would have unblocked this user. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  That was my logic for considering the block; I'll let my colleagues weigh in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The general feeling was that since arbcom had already reviewed their block once, and told them to appeal to arbcom in the future that we were basically "holding" the block even if the previous review was done in error. It just seemed unfair to refer them back the other way when we realized just a few days ago that this was the case. So, yeah, it basically is out of scope but we decided to review it anyway. With the extreme attrition rate on last year's committee, we got left with a decent pile of unfinished business we are now trying to clear out as new business is still piling us as well. Hopefully there's no other little hidden landmines like this one. And just to be perfectly clear, this does not represent any sort of change to appeal procedures. We certainly are not looking to expand the committee's role in that area. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I get that and was really all I was asking. I told GorillaWarfare and Bradv already in private that my concern was about the expansion: ArbCom traditionally isn't very good at handling "crazy but not a felon" type of appeals, where the community tends to have a more robust view of the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox that this should be seen as a one-off. Going forward if we receive these types of appeals we should either restore talk page access so they can file an unblock request, or refer the matter to AN for community review. – bradv🍁 02:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• This wasn't an ArbCom block, and the user responded to being blocked with a ton of IP socking, ranting on their talk page, UTRS, and email, and this was all less than a year ago. My gut response is that this was a bad unblock, and should have at the least been referred to the community. ST47 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:ARBPOL] lists under "scope" To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;, with the footnote The Arbitration Committee resolved by motion on 15 November 2015 to hear appeals (i) from editors who are subject to an ((OversightBlock)) or a ((Checkuserblock)); (ii) from editors who are blocked for reasons that are unsuitable for public discussion; and (iii) from editors blocked or banned by Arbitration and Arbitration Enforcement decisions. This refers to a 2015 motion establishing this policy. Is there a more recent community discussion or ArbCom motion which has expanded the scope of ArbCom's ability to unilaterally decide block appeals? ST47 (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  See Beeblebrox's comment above—we are not expanding the scope of block appeals we hear, nor do I think any of us wish to. I personally would rather limit it further, but that's a conversation for another time... GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  A minor point, but the motion mentioned above amended the Arbitration Committee procedures on which appeals the committee is prepared to handle. The unblock remains authorized by ARBPOL. – bradv🍁 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  So what did @Unicornblood2018: have to say that was so convincing? It can't have been what they were using IPs to spam the noticeboards with, and anecdotally UTRS, email, and IRC as well. Or are they still claiming they didn't sock at all, and they were mysteriously framed? ST47 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  "...to unilaterally decide block appeals?" Any of the Arbs acting in their own capacity as admins could have unilaterally unblocked here so no boundaries have been overstepped. Unicornblood2018 was not blocked via community consensus. As an aside, I closed his UTRS request following this announcement but he filed that using an IP address on a colocation host that is hardblocked locally and globally. I don't think anyone will be giving him an IPBE anytime soon.
   — Berean Hunter (talk)

  I wonder why he felt the need to hide his legitimate IP address while filing the unblock request. ST47 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• To expand a bit on what Beeblebrox said above: this was a one-off, basically arising from our oversight in reviewing their first appeal, but also because these not-marked-as-CU-but-involving-CU-evidence blocks are a grey area (is a "CheckUser block" defined by the specific template used, or by the use of CU?). It's not the first time this has come up. Blocks for sockpuppetry that involve private evidence but not CU are also awkward. And we've discussed several unresolved questions about the new WP:3X bans: are these appealable to ArbCom? Or the community? Or ArbCom and the community? And if the latter what procedure should we be using for such 'dual appeals'? I'll admit that even after one year on the committee, being one of the main arbs handling appeals, I find the policy on sockpuppetry block appeals complex and confusing. I dread to think what it's like for novice users who find themselves with one. I'm hoping that this term we will find the time to look at simplifying the process, and on the way perhaps reducing ArbCom's direct role in routine CU appeals. – Joe (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: - I realise not really the place for it, but the 3X one is interesting. It does say same unban conditions as users banned by community discussion. I recall seeing one or two previous cases where a Community appeal is being considered and a Checkuser has just stated, usually early on, that there isn't anything to be concerned about - presumably off their own bat rather than as required by policy. I wouldn't say ARBCOM needed to be part of it, but instead stick with Community as it says and just ensure that a Checkuser sweep is run, perhaps formalised to be done before the Community stage. The only reason I can see ARBCOM being needed is if the appealing user got a "stil socking" report from the CU and wanted to appeal that stage to ARBCOM. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(I wrote 3X so this is explaining how I viewed it when drafting) 3X had two main goals: 1) avoid the pointless AN threads about officially banning LTAs and prolific sockmasters, 2) clarify for reviewing admins that multiple instances of socking required AN review before unblocking.

Point 2 was already the standard practice when 3X was implemented, but it didn’t have the backing of policy and IIRC there had been several particularly ill-conceived unblocks around that time. 3X prevents that.

As to where ArbCom comes in, I don’t really see it as being any different than pre-3X. Most of these standard offer requests go to AN for review and are appealed on-wiki with non-arb CU consent. If it’s a CU block they still have the option to appeal to ArbCom, as ArbCom can review things with private info, which a CU block necessarily has. Given this is just my intent when I proposed it, and interpretations and practice can change, but I think that’s still a good description of how things usually work. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Arbs seem to be saying that the review ended up being done by ArbCom mostly as a consequence of an error by last year's Committee. However, by imposing an editing restriction that is presumably reviewable only by ArbCom, you are retaining jurisdiction. Wouldn't a move to return it to the community be justified? For example, an AN discussion could be started for the community to endorse and take over the unblock or overturn it, and to endorse and take over, modify, or vacate the editing restriction, so that any appeal is to AN and the unblock and restrictions are community-imposed and authorised. It makes sense to me to state that the ArbCom review was in error but given the instructions to the editor, turning the unblock appeal over to the community would be unfair, but to then impose conditions that only ArbCom can review seems inherently contradictory. Would it have been possible, as an alternative, to impose the restriction for one year as an ArbCom restriction, after which it is reviewable by the community and if retained on appeal, becomes a community sanction? EdChem (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed not to have received a response and am prompted to comment given this new unblock motion. I understand that the Ricky81682 block was placed as a CU block, but if ArbCom are going to invite comment, why not just start an AN thread reporting the appeal and saying the consensus of the community will determine the appeal? Or, is the situation here that the community is invited to comment but that ArbCom will remain free to disregard any community consensus that might emerge? If ArbCom really wants to avoid deciding on appeals in all but the circumstances where there is no option, why not start by actually handing them to the community? EdChem (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ed, I can't tell you how to feel so if you're disappointed well that's how you feel. But some arbs did participate in this discussion and I don't think that arbs individually or the committee as a whole should be expected to discuss every good faith thoughtful idea that comes their way. As for the current appeal, if ArbCom had turned over the appeal to the community that would have been fine - and consistant with several arbs positions of devolving to the community where possible. However, as Ricky's appeal is in their remit, I don't see any reason they can't perform the duties they were elected to do in a reasonable manner supported by policy. Underlining all this is that I don't think at all that we know that "ArbCom really wants to avoid deciding on appeals in all but the circumstances where there is no option" even if that is your wish, and one shared by many (including some arbs). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There were a couple of instances during my time on the committee where we unblocked people whose appeals were within our remit and we got significant negative feedback for doing so without consulting the community. Asking for community comment on such potentially-controversial appeals is intended to prevent those kinds of situations in a couple of ways.

Asking for comment before unblocking gives the community a heads-up that it may happen before it goes ahead, so people can get used to the idea and talk about it beforehand rather than having it dropped on their heads with no warning. The community often has information that arbs may not know of that ought to be considered - yes, research is done before unblocking, but there's no guarantee of finding everything. Sometimes people suggest editing restrictions that arbcom didn't think of that will help mitigate disruption. Asking for commentary doesn't mean arbcom is avoiding doing the work they were elected for, it just means there's an increased awareness that the community should weigh in on potentially-controversial unblocks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

• A bad decision, while I might need to get more feedback on the large number of new article it shouldn't be delayed for another year. Only 1 person seems to have addressed the 100% AFC success rate and the 1 article a day would probably address that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  I wasn't active on that motion, but my understanding is that clear consensus for the article creation effort outlined in your request had not yet been established. While a year may seem like a long time to wait, perhaps you can seek consensus for the proposed mass creation task in the meantime so a future request for relaxation of the restriction has a greater chance of success. –xeno^talk 18:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  Consensus is generally not required for creations just as I have tens of thousands of edits here but didn't obtain consensus for them. While its true that someone in my situation would be advised to seek some sort of consensus it seems odd that I would need permission from the community and the AC when most others can create without discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Crouch, Swale: your lack of understanding of why your restrictions were imposed is the exact reason they are still required. Especially because everyone should be getting permission from the community for mass creations. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: I said that its advisable for me to seek consensus, I've never heard of this being true for anyone else other than pages created automatically, see WP:MASSCREATION. Would you expect me to obtain consensus for any of the tend of thousands of mainspace edits, consensus is generally only required if its a controversial page (or edit) or someone has already reverted or questioned it (WP:BRD). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing here is unprecedented and the idea of separate lists for listed buildings is due to the fact that that's been done with a bot in Scotland and in England lists are being manually created. I provided a comprehensive list of options and reasons so I shouldn't have the door shut on me for an entire year. In any case bold contributions in any case are (at least sometimes) allowed per WP:EP and WP:ROAD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My reading of the rules makes me think that @L235: is probably right in their clerk notes that even 1 arb could be enough to decide any matter so long as they were an absolute majority, but there might be something to say that a minimum quorum of 4 (and so a vote to act by 3) should be in place, even if that requires recused arbs to participate. If the Kudpung case request had been submitted in the latter part of last year we'd be down to truly silly numbers. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Forcing people to take cases in which they may have a real or apparent COI would be wrong on many levels. Majority of one is fine by me as we can not not have a case that we must just because we don't have as many arbs as we like (each arb was formally elected by the community affirming great trust). The majority of one, incidentally, also makes the extraordinary powers that Jimbo theoretically has, seem reasonable (as the most trusted member of the community). Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If it gets down to very low numbers then some of those recused may choose to reconsider. For example, WTT's "we worked closely together in 2011" is a less strong reason to recuse than GW's "I've had past disputes with Kudpung.", especially if Kudpung were happy for WTT to arbitrate (this is not a criticism of WTT's decision to recuse, and I have no idea of Kudpung's opinions on the matter). On the main substance of the matter though, I think that any case be heard by fewer than four arbitrators should automatically be reviewed by Jimbo. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The value of the committee is in having balanced views that are drawn from a wide segment of the community, and arbitrators are elected with that in mind (i.e. someone might be willing to vote for "W" but only because their views are going to be tempered by "XYZ"). Accordingly, having a single person hearing a case does not strike me as appropriate. In my opinion, the rule of necessity should be invoked in such cases, or perhaps that edge case could be held over until January (we would likely only come to such a quandary towards the end of the year in a high-attrition cycle). –xeno^talk 13:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

We still have 11 unrecused arbs that would be active on this case – more than the whole committee for most of last year. I don't think we have to panic yet. – Joe (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: - I deliberately commented because though I felt it wasn't going to be an issue now, it's distinctly not a niche hypothetical, and it's nice to try and resolve the occasional issue before it actually gets a chance to occur Nosebagbear (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I was speaking hypothetically as well (as much as I relish the idea of being The One True Arbiter once all you other layabouts resign ;p). –xeno^talk 13:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: The Arch-Arbitrator? Nosebagbear (talk)

@Nosebagbear: The Archibrator! LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• I seem to remember reading (and I may be conflating with a different procedure) that should ArbCom have too few people available for a case (due to absence/recusals/resignations etc.) then the next few candidates who were closest to being elected who be substituted in as alternate Arbs for the case. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There was a (failed) suggestion to refill the ranks with failed candidates in the 2019 RFC (see here). Regards SoWhy 13:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
    • There was a proposal to provide for emergency elections to be run on an accelerated timeline which can be triggered by the committee at any time, which was carried. If I were the sole remaining arb I would trigger that before attempting to hear a case myself. That doesn't sound like fun. – bradv🍁 13:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
      • The only potential wrinkle is that interim elections may not increase the size of the committee beyond, so if there have been no resignations and the only reason there are insufficient arbs is recusals you wouldn't be able to elect anybody else. The chances of that happening though are somewhat remote. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

We require four votes to open or close a case, so that's why I suggested that as a practical matter four is a quorum, at least for a formal case. We can debate what we'd do if fewer than four arbs are available in a given case, but given that this has never happened since the Committee was created in 2004, it is only a theoretical problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Regarding We require four votes: ((cite))? Is that at least documented somewhere? I don't see it in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy or Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures, that later of which seems to contradict this (Opening of proceedings, 1.ii). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

When the committee was facing a majority of 3 in a 2019 case, arbitrator behaviour was affected and none of us were comfortable with passing decisions on such a low quantity of support. In the end, we waited for a colleague to become available and the decision passed. At the time the committee was meant to be 12-strong. You imagine the effect increases with the committee replenishing to 15 members this year. For some reason arbitrators seem to like all decisions being vetted by at least 4, or approximately 4, other members. I would have trouble supporting majorities of less than 4, and a majority of 1 seems unthinkable. Not every rule is recorded! AGK ■ 14:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Other possibilities might be to enlist temporary mediators from trusted positions within the wikiverse but outside enwiki:
  • Arbs on other wikis. I assume at least some other wikis have something like arbcom. Subject to English language skills.
  • Stewards. Again, the subset fluent in English.
  • WMF staff. Yeah, I know, probably not a popular idea.

None of these are perfect, we're talking about finding the least bad way of handling a crisis. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this discussion in conflating two scenarios (though it's of course possibel for both scenarios to happen at the same time): what happens when the committee is depleted due to resignations/unavailability/etc and what happens if a substantial % of arbitrators wish to recuse due. Obviously the smaller the committee the fewer arbs it takes recusing to cause a problem. This is why I thought it important that the community made it easier for a snap election to be called so I think we're better covered than we had been in the past. And I agree with the rule of necessity in the case of too few being available and think that this could be codified into arbcom proceures. There seems to be broad arbitrator support for a minimum of number of votes and I would support an amendment to ARBPOL if put forth by the committee to that effect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Responding to your question above (and please excuse the delay, I was traveling). You may technically be right about the required majority to open and close a case at this point. (Also @Xeno: with whom I was discussing the same issue.) Historically, either accepting/opening or closing a case had the "net four" requirement and so it was impossible for the Committee to function on a case without at least four arbitrators. A few years ago, we had a controversial case request. I don't recall the exact numbers of votes but it was along the lines of a situation with 11 active arbitrators, with 7 voting to accept the case and 4 to decline it. Under a strict "net four" rule that meant the case would not be heard, but screening out a case with an absolute majority of the Committee voting to accept it was obviously not the purpose of the rule and was not a sensible result. In the short term, one of the decline voters changed to accept so we could move ahead with the case. In the longer term, we changed the rule to add "absolute majority" as an alternative to "net four." The intent of the change, at least so far as I'm aware, was never to authorize a case to move forward with only a tiny number of arbitrators—that issue wasn't discussed one way or the other as far as I can recall—but on rereading I see your point that the current wording could lead to that result. (I also still think that given that the situation hasn't ever happened in 15+ years, coupled with the recent enlargement of the Committee, this is a mostly theoretical discussion.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: thanks for your reply. As this is more of an ArbCom "process" and not "policy" it appears that the committee can administratively update it to reflect the practice as needed. If we actually encountered a situation where the committee could not (would not) engage: don't worry the community has a barn full of torches and pitchforks to deploy :) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I'll start sharpening my torch and lighting my pitchfork immediately! Nosebagbear (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, wasn't there also a quorum problem during an election involving Elen of the Roads (IIRC) when the number of Arbs recused due to being candidates rendered the Committee unable to act? Presumably had the Committee sought to act by means of a case, the same quorum issue would have arisen? I recall the situation vaguely but not the details, and thought it might be another circumstance similar to the issue being raised here. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If memory serves, that was because, under the arbitration policy, as it was then, any arbitrator who repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined above may be suspended or removed by Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators. Elen, at the time, was standing as a candidate in the election, so the other arbitrators who were up for reelection as well recused and, therefore, it was impossible to meet that requirement. Back then, the interpretation was that the policy did not provide that recused (or inactive) arbitrators should not be taken into account to determine the 2/3 majority. Salvio 17:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Welcome back! I'm glad to see you back, even if all the drama was way before my time. Glad you're back! Puddleglum ^2.0 05:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
• Glad to see you too! Always good to have someone who can beat some sense into longevity articles around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I'm not sure how I feel about this. I butt heads with RHaworth at one point (although he was still very nice to me). I felt that he generally was a valued member of the Wikipedia community. I hope he won't stop contributing. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  I don't really see how he can possibly continue contributing. His whole deal was CSD. But there you go. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  He did some work on UK geography and coordinates, one thing I'd note is that RHaworth salted a lot of pages, something I question due to the fact that salted pages can easily be created at a different location. I've not encountered problems with RHaworth (even though they blocked me years ago) and AFAIK RHaworth has been a good admin and I wish to see him continue contributing to this project. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I feel this was the right decision, and ArbCom did the right thing. Thank you. That said, RHaworth, like me and everyone else here, have invested a huge amount of their time, nay, their life, into helping Wikipedia. And I thank them for that. Speaking for myself, I would be utterly, utterly devastated if the community found that all my efforts here were found to be flawed, and then debated to remove my admin rights.  So, I have to ask, what middle ground can be found in future, whereby I, as an AGF, but mistaken admin, can be steered back to acting more fairly? We've seen this on another matter with Brown Haired Girl, and I totally support ArbCom's decision there to desysop them, too. But, if I stray from the expected norms, you all need a mechanism to bring me back to those norms well before I need to be blocked or desysoped. So, how do you all go about doing that? This is a question you must answer, not me. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  The middle ground was shuttered some years ago. Some intrepid soul should research why RfC/U eventually fell out of favour and propose a similar community process. –xeno^talk 00:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  {ec} If situation is chronic (e.g. continual lapse over years), it may not be fixable, if situation is acute (e.g. lapse in a shorter time period), then I the solution is in giving ArbCom the power to avoid a binary-desysop (from which few ever recover), with some kind of rehabilitation period, whereby the admin can have their bit restored directly by ArbCom (not RfA), if they show ArbCom they have resolved their issues. However, per Beeblebrox above, that functionality was taken from ArbCom; it is in effect more binary now. Britishfinance (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  While I understand the basis for both recent desysops, I am really saddened that two highly productive administrators lost the bit. I am just brainstorming here, but I think that it would be a good thing if ArbCom had the ability to suspend an administrator for 90 days, for example, with an admonition about specific problematic behaviors, and a warning that a permanent desysop would follow if those behaviors reoccurred. Perhaps we could have retained these administrators and corrected the disruptive behaviors. I am the eternal optimist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • • (ec) I agree with the above. An ArbCom case is a "heated" environment at the best (or worst) of times, however, an "admin" ArbCom case is another level of intensity. Having a first ArbCom finding of a desysop puts a marker down. Allowing all parties (including ArbCom), reflect for 3-6 months, and giving the admin time away from WP, and then time to return and "live normally" for a few months before a final review of rulings, could be helpful in acute cases. I think that could have definitely helped in BHG's case. Britishfinance (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) Britishfinance: This used to be done, but over a decade ago. My question is: How would the committee be able to assess any improvement in administrative conduct if the user no longer has administrator user rights? I'd prefer trying some kind of "suspended sentence", such that a user would continue as an administrator but can be called back if problems persist. SandyGeorgia raised the concern that this was a "half-measure" and basically kicks the can down the road. –xeno^talk 01:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) Xeno, what you say makes more sense, and I would agree with that. Even though in one way an ArbCom case is long, in another way (e.g. for an admin who has given over a decade of service), it is a short time to make what can result in a binary decision. I do a lot of AfDs, and it is amazing what a re-list can do (always surprised we don't use for RfAs), or even how attitudes can change 6 months later. For the "non-schoolbook solution" cases (e.g. per the smaller majority of BHG's !votes), it would be useful. Britishfinance (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The main deficient conduct of both BHG and RHaworth didn't rely on their use of admin tools. Removal of the bit wouldn't affect reassessment of BHG at all, and RHaworth only indirectly; granting researcher for the duration of the admin suspension would have further mitigated reassessment in RHaworth's case, as he would still have been able to mail the content of pages he deleted. —Cryptic 01:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

    Cryptic: That’s just it- ADMINCOND is not merely about intemperate language, it’s the intemperateness while holding a big stick. The Rambling Man (correct me if I’m wrong TRM, but this is how I saw it), for example, realized he would rather forego his toolsets than to have to mince words. Personally I miss his contributions to bureaucrat chats; at the same time, I respect his decision and the community’s position that administrators (and bureaucrats doubly so) reperesent the project at-large and thus generally should remain exceedingly polite - especially to new and newer users - but also to users with less community-granted authority, and to peers. –xeno^talk 14:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  It would mean WP:ADMINCOND no longer applies, though. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  If a suspended admin acts as if they weren't subject to ADMINCOND while they didn't have their bit, that's extremely clear evidence for the kind of reassessment Xeno is talking about. —Cryptic 02:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Are formal warnings really necessary? In the case here, ArbCom's findings note that there were multiple ANI discussions regarding RHaworth's deletions and treatment of other editors. When I've stuffed up as an admin, I've tried to take on board the feedback at ANI/AN and other discussions, and I'd hope that other admins are also mindful of feedback. An admin who is regularly ending up at ANI should be reflecting on whether their conduct is OK, though of course the systemic problems in that forum can complicate this. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  We can't blame ArbCom for doing what we've asked them to do, and what we expect them to do in the absence of any other community process for bringing admins back into touch with the community and project they are here to serve. (Something about Wikipedia tends to make people in positions of perceived power forget what it feels like in the trenches, and lose touch with the fact that there are real people behind every account.)

  I don't agree with the BHG finding, but I respect ArbCom's role and unpleasant task of dealing with entrenched problems.

  My question is what on earth we were thinking when we did away with WP:RFC/U, which would be a means outside of the circus that is WP:ANI to let admins know when their behavior is veering off course? I have seen over and over situations at ANI that are entrenched admin conduct problems that perhaps could have been addressed at RFC/U; instead, we are sent off to formulate RFCs around problems that aren't problems, beyond the conduct of individuals. I know we can't afford to lose admins. But even more, we can't afford to lose editors because of admins who lose touch with why we're here. I will not fault the arbs for doing what we've asked them to do. Recently, we are seeing cases of admins who aren't getting the message no matter how it's delivered; perhaps a more deliberative forum, like RFC/U was, to give feedback would sink in before we have to get to the level of ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  (ec) Obviously we are discussing two cases here, but I felt RW's lent more the chronic (e.g. happened over years, with many misheaded warnings, although very sad for the guy as while he was not perfect, he gave of himself fully to WP), however, BHG's was more acute (e.g. respected admin up until a period of 2-3 months when things really escalated). I am not sure ArbCom can do much with cases that lean to chronic (although I could be wrong), but, I would be more hopeful of acute cases getting resolved (unless they become chronic). Britishfinance (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Feedback processes only work well when the person in question is receptive to the feedback and open to making changes. Ideally this would be voluntary; in the workplace or other hierarchical situations it can be driven by the desire to avoid punitive actions. As you may recall, requests for comments on users stopped being effective because the subjects stopped being receptive and responsive. Any revival needs to provide incentives for the subjects to engage with the process. Although much of the discussion above talks about removing administrative privileges, I think we should look at better ways to provide feedback to both administrators and non-administrators.

  Some commenters in recent arbitration cases have raised the option of respected editors assuming the responsibility of having a quiet word with other editors. I have struggled with trying to find a way to make it easier to trigger this discussion: someone needs to raise a valid issue, and then someone must be found who is willing to take on the unpleasant task and who is respected by the editor in question. A very simple idea I had was for editors to place a user box on their talk page where they can specify one or more editors that they trust. The user box would encourage anyone with a concern to either raise it directly with the editor in question, or to contact one of the trusted editors. This would obviously not make any difference to the vast majority of editors who didn't use the user box, nor to those who simply list trusted editors who aren't actually comfortable with raising issues with the user. On the other hand, it's a fairly low overhead approach that, if used properly, makes it easy to route concerns to an appropriately respected editor. isaacl (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I don't believe that would work at all; admins (or editors) who lose touch and become abusive tend to be surrounded by like-minded, "yes people", who won't tell them the truth. It wouldn't work in any number of cases I can think of.

  On the other hand, if we revived some form of RFC/U, at least if the person in question is not receptive, they can't say they are surprised if/when the case escalates to ArbCom and they end up desysopped. As of now, we have no intermediate step. Unless we think ANI will address problem admins ... (it doesn't). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I agree it's not going to work at all with those who are not receptive to hearing feedback. The hope is that people will identify a respected editor early on, and whenever they may become more jaded and less willing to editors who aren't on their respected list, there will already be a pre-identified respected editor who can offer a quiet word of advice. Like I said, it's not going to help for nearly everybody, but it's virtually no overhead for everyone except those participating in good faith.

  Again, I don't see this as an issue restricted to administrators. (There's an added problem with administrators, though: knowing the arbitration committee is the only one that can remove administrative privileges, some will refuse to engage unless a case request is opened.) If some editors are only going to listen to a select group of others, then it doesn't matter much if issues are raised on their talk pages, at AN/I, or at RFC/U. Which is in fact what happened with RFC/U: the subjects just wrote off the complaints and didn't engage. If we are trying to find a way to intervene early, we need to figure out who can do the intervening effectively. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Isaacl - respected editors already made extensive efforts to talk to both admins. Dozens tried talking to BHG, using both blunt & diplomatic styles, and in some cases these were folk that BHG has explicitly said she respected. From a quick glance at the RHaworth case, I see Ritchie333 sat down in RL with RHaworth, which has lots of advantages over text based discussion. I too have spoke to Ritchie at a London pub, he's as personable as they come, but even he failed to reason with RHaworth. We should always try, but passionate people cant always be reasoned with.

  As pointed out by Beeblebrox and others, the thing the community could have done better is to apply lesser sanctions. For BHG & NA1K, we could have supported JzGs wise proposal & given them a simple 2 way iBan. If needed, followed by topic bans. Neither party would have thought it fair, but it should have reduced the drama with much less time needed, and much less risk of making one of them want to retire. Not sure what could have been done for RHaworth, though is sad to see this happen to a hard working admin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I wasn't talking about these specific cases; I am trying to figure out how to improve early intervention in future. (I am incidentally one of the people who made suggestions to BrownHairedGirl on conversational approach.) Clearly early intervention won't work with everyone, and might only work with a very small number of people. Accordingly, the minor idea I proposed is very low effort, so hopefully the benefit-to-cost ratio is worthwhile. isaacl (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• My take on RFC/U was that it’s demise was a consequence of its neglect, and its neglect was a consequence of it not being real, which meant that very few representative community members participated. What was the point? RfA has an obvious point, and it remains very successful in drawing in community participation. These two desysops for incivility, while sad losses to the community for the loss of their admin contributions, are quite positive in terms of the community now taking civility more seriously. I see that firm civility line from ArbCom as being strongly influenced by WP:FRAM, and the realisation that the WMF considered en.wikipedia to be weak on civility. Maybe RH and BHG got a harsh deal, but this hard response was coming. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see civility being taken more seriously (yet). I just posted about civility right above an admin, who overlooked the obvious on the page since they represented the same "side", to ask someone to cease personal attacks on IPs, and the response was to quote an admin saying it's OK. So, there was little 'ole me, on a talk page, sandwiched between two admins (one quoted), asking for civility, which no one else had done in that discussion.
    And while I agree that BrownHairedGirl got an unnecessarily harsh deal, I hope she will step back and, over time, realize that a) she would be resysopped if she ran again, and b) she should run for Arbcom after that, since she is now in better position to realize how it feels for the rest of editors out there "in the trenches" dealing with a double standard in spite of all we give to the project. We tend to forget that we're all expendable.
    Now, I will be faulting ArbCom if we lost BHG for naught, and they allow the next admin a free pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • BHG for ArbCom? RfA? These two cases are civility being taken seriously. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @SandyGeorgia: we are indeed all expendable, and I have been expended. See User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Statement_by_BHG_on_the_ArbCom_decision.

The ArbCom findigs of "fact" in the portals case included a big chunk of counter-factuals, and set some very bad precedents for Wikipedia by green-lighting sustained disruption and focusing only on the terminology used to describe real problems. The Arbs compounded that by applying a principle of double jeopardy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl I saw that days ago, and I feel for you. I'm not going to your talk page to try to talk you back, because it would irritate the heck out of me if people did that to me if I was in your position, but my email is open, and I'd love to share my perspective with you. From one sister to another, I say with all respect and admiration for all the work you've done and how well you did it for so many years, "Buck up buttercup"; you can make a difference. You would now make an excellent arb: admin experience, content experience, and seeing how wrong things can go in here and how it feels to have an unjust block log. You have a perspective now that few do. Give it time, think about it. Email me if you'd like. Otherwise, I wish you well on whatever path you take. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(Just don't like bulleting my posts, in general discussions) I remember those Rfc/U. I went through one of them in 2011 & it wasn't pleasant. Someone had suggested I had psychological problems. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• As I wrote on the proposed decision talk page, we look to Arbcom to solve problems community processes cannot. I think there will continue to be cases where admins go down unfortunate paths, don't take community feedback well (battlefield mentality), but get the wakeup call they need through the RFAr process. In those cases where they show insight and make credible commitments to change their behaviour, in the spirit of prevention rather than punishment, I do think some sort of "suspended sentence" or on probation remedy would be helpful. Of course, what constitutes insight and credible commitments can be debated, but I'm not persuaded by counterarguments in the abstract about "Arbcom can only judge trust has been lost and so must desysop". Anyway, the flip side is we shall see whether the recent pattern of Arbcom bit removals results in admins taking community feedback on board sooner, even if they can't yet in the moment see themselves in the mirror fully. I'm not sure RFC/U was that successful, but it's also worth a try to bring it back. Martinp (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ideally, ArbCom only accepts cases in which prior DR has been exhausted, i.e. cases in which the users, whose conduct is subject of the review, had been given plenty of opportunities to get the "wakeup call" long before the RFAr process. And history also shows that those who display genuine insight into why their behavior was problematic might very well keep their sysop-bit (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision#GiantSnowman desysopped). That said, adding another process before RFAr to potentially give people the "wakeup call" they need would not be the worst idea. Unfortunately, as with all wakeup calls, they only work if the user in question is actually willing to wake up. Regards SoWhy 13:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Often, they won't heed the wakeup call, because the reason some admins become abusive to begin with is because of pack mentality, their friends come roaring to their defense and they don't see the truth about how they are impacting the broader community, etc. But at least we should have tried to gather community feedback outside of the heated ANI circus, and in a more deliberative process, before we send things off to the arbs.
      Years ago, I started an RFC on an admin. The non-outcome was predictable, as everyone who had an axe to grind against me came roaring in as well (in spite of a clear revdel violation), and there was no concrete finding about that admin. But ten years (?maybe?, I can't remember) later, I can say it was worth it, because that admin never repeated those behaviors and as far as I know kept a clean record going forward. Although it didn't seem so at the time, the RFC/U worked, even though it was sidetracked by people using it to grind axes against me. The behaviors stopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I only have vague memories of RFC/U but GoodDay's comment that it was suggested there they have a psychological problem resonates well with what I do recall of it. The biggest problem with AN/I is that it is unstructured and it's very easy for a discussion to be derailed, sidetracked, wikilawyered or devolve into a morass of TL;DR (the AN/I threads about portals are a very good example of the latter) - and all can result from either good or bad faith intent (or even without intent in some cases). For a new process to work it will need some way to avoid the pitfalls of its predecessor and of AN/I - i.e. a mechanism to keep it focused, civil and concise. Clerks and a (semi-)structured process are the first thing that comes to mind for this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • As I recall, editors have indeed raised objections to the arbitration committee setting conditions on when an editor can have administrative privileges restored, so it's not an abstract concern. (Albeit in a slightly different context, this came up as well in situations where an administrator had privileges removed after a password breach.) My out-of-the-blue guess is that a majority of the community would be agreeable to temporary suspension with conditions for restoring privileges, but that support may not reach a level of general consensus, with significant dissent from long-time editors. isaacl (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Often, they won't heed the wakeup call, because the reason some admins become abusive to begin with is because of pack mentality, their friends come roaring to their defense and they don't see the truth about how they are impacting the broader community, etc. - I feel I should note that though this definitely does happen, it didn't happen with the two recent cases (especially with RHaworth's) - the community was fairly clearcut that there were issues and it needed to change. When it comes to either a suspension method or RFC/U replacement etc, I'm somewhat neutral. I'd want to see a draft set-up with some reasoning on how it could avoid the prior issues, even if not flawless. I don't have anything wrong with either a fairly short-term suspension or suspended sentence (e.g. 90 days) being within ARBCOM's remit, but I don't think anything indefinite is wise. To do so either removes community authority or just puts off making a hard decision. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• As I stated to Xeno on the proposed decision talk page, the problem with intermediate steps is that they risk allowing problems to fester even longer, and at greater consequence. Theoretically, a case should not be before the arbs unless previous steps have been tried and failed. By the time an admin situation reaches the arbs, they need to act, as they are our only recourse. As much as I feel for BrownHairedGirl, tools can be regained (and she would likely regain them). A permanent blocklog, or a new user chased off has no remedy, so we have to err in the direction of protecting those who don't have the tools. If an admin case reaches Arbcom, they have to act. We should have a way to address admin behaviors before they have to reach the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that if an administrator is desysopped for poor-use - or misuse - of their tools (rather than, say, a general bad attitude towards other editors) then any RfA they subsequently go through should have a probationary period attached to it. ArbCom would make a final assessment whether to fully reinstate or not, related to the areas they lost the bit for initially. How can the community reassess the administrative decision-making competence of an editor like RH if they can't see them in action again in those areas that caused concern (like rushed and misjudged CSDs) until they actually get the bit back? In the case of BHG, it's a different matter, and that assessment can be made by us all prior to that RfA. The only other alternative is to develop WP:RECALL into a formal part of our procedures. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. As I mentioned regarding the BHG case, it's important that the community has the final say. If Arbcom were to do something that most of the community didn't agree with, the current process gives the community a way to override Arbcom's decision, on a time-scale that doesn't involve waiting for the next election. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

PS, now that I think about it, given the pace that Arbcom cases typically progress, the community can re-issue mops faster than arbcom can take them away :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If ArbCom makes a mistake (or the community felt they did), then they should be able to correct it and for desysops, this means supporting a new RFA. This also ties into what Nick Moyes said: RFA already is a process where people without tools are evaluated whether they should get the tools and so there is plenty someone without tools can do to prove they learned from concerns, even when related to tool use (for example, a non-admin can prove their knowledge in the field of speedy deletion by correctly nominating articles for speedy deletion). Regards SoWhy 18:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

SoWhy I don't think this is the case. Where people have had tools removed by ArbCom for cause, it is very unlikely that they will pass another RfA (I wonder how many have? I can think of one example, offhand, and that ended up in a crat chat, and it was quite a while ago) because many people will vote against precisely because of the ArbCom decision, however flawed it might be. There have been a few cases recently. That's not to say people won't oppose for valid reasons, but there is simply that "ArbCom said they were untrustworthy, so I can't support" issue. Further, in cases where the desysop was actually due to misuse of tools, there's no way of that editor proving that they can be trusted to use them again now, because, well, they don't have them. Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that someone would think "ArbCom got it wrong but I'm still going to oppose." More likely a substantial portion of the community is either going to trust ArbCom (not a bad thing) or make their own independent assessment of the facts and come to the same conclusion as ArbCom on the worthiness of someone being a sysop. So far no problem in my book. The problem only comes in - and I'm not sure it has - if ArbCom behaves as though the community will resysop marginal cases when there isn't evidence to support that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I would hope that to be true as well. After all, infallibility was not on the ArbCom job description and I would never assume any ArbCom to be perfect. As for the regaining trust after a desysop for misuse part, as I pointed out above, there are sufficient ways to prove that you can trusted with the tools even without having them. After all, that is how we currently determine whether to trust someone who never had the tools. That the barrier might be higher for someone who previously abused said tools than for someone who never had them, does not change this. Regards SoWhy 21:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49 SoWhy Yes, but you're missing my point - people will (and have) voted against such RFAs because of the ArbCom decision since they assume it to be correct - when it might well be flawed. Obviously, if they assess the ArbCom decision independently and agree with it, then no-one is going to disagree with their vote. But, judging from some recent (and not so recent) RfAs, it does seem to be the case that people just read the PD page of the relevant ArbCom case (or even just think "hmm, desysopped by ArbCom, can't be trusted") and that's where the issue lies. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BlackKite: See User:Thryduulf/What happened after a desysop for details. Since 2015 only 3 people who were desysopped by arbcom have stood at RFA: 1 (Rich Farmbrough) was unsuccessful because the issues that resulted in the desysop were continuing, 1 (Hawkeye7) was unsuccessful (twice) because of new issues since the desysop and 1 (Fram) was unsuccessful immediately after the case closed. Nobody who has taken the time to demonstrably resolve the issues that led to the desysop and has not done anything (else) that would prevent a successful first RFA since has stood so it is impossible to how someone in that position would fare. Speaking personally, I would want to see three things before supporting the RFA of someone who was desysopped by arbcom (in no particular order): (1) evidence that they understood why the actions that resulted in their desysop were wrong before supporting; (2) several months (at least 3-6) of editing without serious issues; (3) an indication that they are familiar with contemporary policy and expectations, particularly in the area where they had trouble previously. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, I actually did understand that. It doesn't bother me if people say "I am going to trust the assessment of people broadly elected and who have carefully considered the issues at hand". I understand why others will find that lacking but it doesn't bother me if a Wikipedian treats ArbCom as a reliable source about administrator conduct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty sensible to assume Arbcom's decision to be correct: they're after all elected by community consensus to look at the evidence in detail. Sure their decision could be flawed, but the odds are against it. There're a lot of other examples where we simply trust the people who've looked at the topic in detail, e.g. you do not have to become a virologist to believe that HIV causes AIDS. Banedon (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@BackKite: In this and the Portals case, having followed the cases from start to finish (and Fram where I followed much but not all of the drama, and where of course much evidence was not publicly available), it seems that there is more of a correlation between people reading only the PD and assuming that arbcom got it wrong somehow than there is between reading only the PD and assuming arbcom got it right (certainly based on the evidence presented here and at Portals the desysop decision was correct). Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there's a fair amount of evidence that people who comment here and on the talk pages of proposed decisions don't reflect the community as a whole. At least judigng by FRAM vs Fram's RfA and any number of discussions here vs the relection of arbs who voted in those cases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• This case appears to me to demonstrate that in cases where there is broad agreement - albeit not unanimity - that an admin's conduct is sub-par, this can be handled by ArbCom as a matter of first impression. This seems to me to be an appropriate mechanism. It avoids the problem of mob justice. The only problem with ArbCom is that results are achieved on geological timescales. One solution would be that if a case is open against an admin, the tools could be temporarily removed by motion (or the admin required not to use them on pain of desysop). That would have been appropriate here, and is in some ways analogous to the temporary injunctions in Portals. I would say that Cullen328's idea of temporary suspension of the sysop bit as an outcome also has obvious merit, analogous to temporary topic bans and temporary blocks. At the moment there is only the nuclear option, which is used, rightly, with some reluctance. Resurrecting the zombie corpse of RFC/U is a terrible idea. It was a toxic mess. Guy (help!) 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, Jzg is correct; RFCU was a horrible mess. Meanwhile, the difference between this case and Portals is that there was a long history of RHaworth being brought to ANI and other venues regarding the various issues that were discussed during the case. With BHG, that wasn't really the case. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'm curious why you think there is a need to default to removing tools when a case is open against an admin. As you state, we have procedures to remove tools if there seems to be an urgent need to do so (temporary injunctions or, if particularly urgent, WP:LEVEL1), but it's fairly rare in admin cases that this is necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• One issue that has not been mentioned here, yet has import to both cases mentioned, is WikiBurnout. Simply expressed, contributing to Wikipedia is a lot harder work than people recognize: I'm amazed that so few people recognize this. Over the 18 years I've been active here I've watched dozens of hard-working Wikipedians suddenly burn out like a star going nova. The stress of dealing with other people is only one part: there is also the demands of research, of writing (good writing is always harder than it looks), of trying to navigate the rules of the website -- all performed as altruistic actions without receiving money, let alone credit for one's efforts. (When was the last time the average volunteer could say "I contribute to Wikipedia" got a reaction from a stranger better than a puzzled, "So what do you really do?") Robert Fernandez's essay raises effect of "jalt", but the matter is not jealousy or an expectation of privilege, but simply hoping for a modicum of dignity for ones work. The effort of tolerating disagreement time & again, even when it's clear that dissenting opinions aren't offered in good faith, can be inevitably corrosive. So it's not surprising that there comes a straw that breaks the camel's back, that veteran & exemplary editors can suddenly act like some inexperienced nooby over some trivial matter that belongs at WP:LAME. It's a problem we need to address before we lose more key volunteers. However I suspect it won't: it will get ignored as both Wikipedia & the Foundation focus on the experience of new volunteers at the cost of keeping experienced & veteran ones. -- llywrch (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  The thing is bringing in fresh volunteers so that the workload can be spread out is probably the best thing that can be done to reduce the potential for burnout. We need ways to channel volunteers towards their areas of interest and to learn common conventions and best practices, while at the same time not stifling their creativity in coming up with new improvements. An active WikiProject ecosystem is one avenue to help achieve this, so ways to revive WikiProjects would be good. Maybe the link to the Wikipedia:Community portal can be given more prominence, to help editors explore and build their network of contacts. Although I know there's a large antipathy towards having paid staff doing anything that volunteers could theoretically do, perhaps updates to the community portal or other liaison and co-ordination tasks could be delegated to someone paid by the WMF, simply to ensure someone is always working on those tasks. (This wouldn't necessarily mean that others couldn't, say, update the portal; it would just mean someone would be dedicated to doing things like replacing stale content with fresh content.) More ideas are welcome. isaacl (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Well said. I don't feel as though burnout is addressed as much as other issues, despite being a very important one.... 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 00:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I wrote an essay related to this—Wikipedia:Wikipedia is stressful—it's in the project space, so feel free to edit it, maybe add your own tips on dealing with stress. The nutshell is this: involving yourself in this project will occasionally place you in conflict with other editors. It is an unavoidable consequence of any project that requires collaboration among a diverse group of individuals, and it unfortunately causes many editors to state that they find Wikipedia stressful at times. It's key to remember that while Wikipedia is sometimes stressful, it shouldn't always be—when you're feeling burned out, it's healthy to step back and take a break from the project. Alternatively, there are a number of uncontroversial tasks you could help out with. Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that essay addresses one part of the problem. Another important part is the problem that one can work hard creating articles only to miss any sense of appreciation for the work. It was not such an issue back in the Stone Age of Wikipedia, when most of the content was taken from PD or free sources filtered thru varying degrees of rewrite or paraphrase: creating a substantial article back then might take an hour at most. But now that creating or improving an article requires hours of research (which can't always be documented), sometimes requires an outlay of money (I had to pay Duke University library $15 to borrow one of their books to use for an article), & more hours of writing (which sometimes can be documented thru the edit history of an article). Or, to repeat a well-worn phrase, the days of low-lying fruit are long past; to make Wikipedia content better has become hard work. And after putting in this much time & resources on an article -- which even after all that work might not merit GA or FA status -- one may find no one notices, or much cares. Which, despite any mature attitude or self-talk, does become demoralizing over the long term. Do this for 6 or 12 months, add a spouse or partner who makes pointed comments about "wasting all your time on the computer" when there are chores to do & appointments to keep, & WikiBurnout follows. Writing Wikipedia articles may always be an act of love, but it far too often becomes a case of unrequited love; eventually, if one is smart, one will turn to the other fish in the sea. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it is notable that while the cases differ in subject, scope and evidence, all three of the recent ArbCom cases involve longterm admins...they aren't new the job, they've put in 10 or 15 years of work here. And the cases all deal, in part or in whole, with civility and interactions with other editors or admins.

I think the burnout doesn't always involve use of the tools but exhaustion from explaining yourself again and again. As hard as writing a good article is, I think it might be more tiring to be focused not on improving articles but on spending a great deal of ones time on user talk or project talk pages explaining ones perspective on an editing or admin decision. This discussion is, of course, an essential part of the process both for admins and editors but, as we see daily on ANI, abrasive interactions with another user(s) may cause even an experienced editor to lose sight of the bigger picture and personalize disputes. And I think that experience is something each one of us has probably faced which is why at each RfA the candidate is asked about past conflicts with other editors. JMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in order to allow administrators to have relief from dealing with the same issues over and over again, we need new administrators to share the workload and provide respite. Some people believe there are more than enough administrators to administer English Wikipedia, but we also need to keep the pipeline flowing, so current administrators can feel free to move on to other tasks if desired. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Yes, we need new administrators, if only Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isaacl weren't red. :-) – Levivich 06:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Also concerning would be the number of users who act on or express a feeling of addiction -- addiction or addictive behavior is likely to lead to poor, if not tragic, outcomes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Dreamy Jazz Having some clerking at it before the committee, eh. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 07:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• 👋 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 11:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Congratulations, Dreamy Jazz. Clovermoss (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• (being a clerk) is very dangerous. To help you remain tranquil in the face of almost certain death, smooth jazz will be deployed in 3...2...1... ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good luck --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome to the clerk team --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 18:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Welcome Aboard. SQL^{Query me!} 05:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Happy clerking!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Dreamy Jazz: I hope you and Money emoji join ArbCom someday! ミラP 00:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• (slightly belated) thanks to everyone for the messages. Happy editing everyone, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Original announcement

I believe it was the right decision. I am a strong believer in second chances. I'm sure they realize their mistakes and that they stay in the past. When I requested to be unblocked a year ago, I wasn't sure whether I would be granted a second chance and here I am one year later, a user who is committed to making Wikipedia a better place. Interstellarity (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Interstellarity I am well aware that what I did was wrong and hope I can now continue to improve Wikipedia as I did before I was blocked. ~ RhinosF1 _(Chat) / ^(Contribs) 22:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I was wondering if there had been any consideration about the set-up of the RfC by ARBCOM - i know it got knocked on by firstly the dearth of Arbs & the elections, and then a string of simultaneous cases, but with a full house and only a single current case, now would seem about as good a time as we're likely to get.

I don't particularly want some of the possible and/or probable outcomes of such an RfC, but I do think it needs to take place. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You meant this RfC, right? We are looking to initiate that relatively soon. –xeno^talk 18:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a rough idea if it would be within the next month or so? I am tempted to get some thoughts rolling with an open brainstorming discussion, but it's probably not worth it if the RfC is coming within the next few weeks. isaacl (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: - yes, that's the one. Thanks for the quick response (and then just 24 times longer for me to spot it!) Nosebagbear (talk)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Hopefully, if an Rfc is brought forward, a consensus will be reached on that Rfc's proposal. I wish luck to both sides :) GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oh FFS, another decent and immensely hard working editor hounded off the encyclopedia in favor of one who writes garbage. Reyk _YO! 22:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI: User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Statement_by_BHG_on_the_ArbCom_decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've just posted my concerns over somewhat biased wording in one of ArbCom recommendations for a Portal RfC over on the case's talk page Maybe that was the wrong place? So just to repeat: The wording on 'Page Views' seems to imply a minimum number of page views will be implemented in any a guideline - something that's never been a factor in a WP:AFD discussion, or at WP:AFC for new articles to be permitted. I'm guessing this is just sloppy wording, so would like to propose an amendment. The original ArbCom recommendation appears first, below:

  Page views: Should there be a minimum number of page views for a portal to be considered viable? How should those page views be measured?

Surely, for even-handedness, it should have been worded as follows:

Page views: Should there be a minimum number of page views for a portal to be considered viable? If so, how should those page views be measured?

Nick Moyes (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: There's no requirement that the questions in the RFC be taken verbatim from the decision, and any wording concerns like that can be addressed there. I'm afraid you overestimate ArbCom's influence if you think that level of nuance in wording is likely to affect the community's opinions on the content issues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Whilst you're right in one sense, getting the correct starting point for discussion is quite important, and people are bound to be influenced by any unintended nuance in wording. Raising this point now seems both relevant and logical. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I admitted expressed concerns during the proposal stage and appreciate the response from Beeblebrox which is why I didn't respond further. However, I find it shocking that arbitrators are suggesting that the format of what they voted on will have no bearing on what's to come. Obviously the arbitrators thought it important otherwise they'd have voted for 7 rather than 7.1. In doing a bit more introspection about why this rankled me so, some of it was just because of a bit of personal temporary jadedness around RfCs, some of it over 7 vs 7.1, but a lot of it over a real disappointment that we're now four months on from FRAM and the RfC that ArbCom promised us has yet to be seen nor has there really been an update about its progress other than "it's coming". I figured "well maybe the last arbcom was just burned out and needed the fresh perspective of the new arbs to make it happen". And perhaps that's still true but we're a month in - with several signs of that fresh perspective bringing about resolution to some simmering issues - and still no update. I could (and did) write more but I'll leave it at that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I wasn't suggesting, nor has anyone else, that what we voted on in our decision will have no bearing on future events. What I said was that a two-word nuance in the wording of proposed RfC questions should not prevent anyone from refining the framing of the issues or on the decision that is made. For what it's worth, I agree that the suggested edit by Nick Moyes, adding If so, is probably an improvement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I hope, however, you read to the end (if only choosing to respond to part) because I think the heart of what I wrote came after the second sentence :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I will echo my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals:

"In my personal opinion, the proposed decision was merely a guideline and recommendation to the community based upon what occurred during the case. There is no requirement for the RFC to be word-for-word otherwise ArbCom would simply post the RFC ourselves. Some refinement, wordsmithing, and ideally input from editors closely working in the topic area would be appropriate."

The suggestion to the community from the committee is based upon the fact that we spent several weeks reviewing an on-going problem regarding portals. We certainly did not look into the entirety of the portal dispute or expand our review into content related decisions. The issue is obviously complex and other aspects may also need to be reviewed or targeted. Mkdw ^talk 02:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• One of the contributions to The Portal Problem has been duplication of parallel RfCs. I think there is currently one page hosting serious ongoing discussion, and it is User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. I suggest contributing there, and if the discussion should continue or re-start somewhere, propose to do so at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace, don't just start up a new random RfC thread. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Reading through the case documentation, I can't find any clear justification for the desysop of BHG. The evidence shows an otherwise-unproblematic admin engaged in a handful of incidents of petty incivility, confined to a single contentious content dispute that the community had repeatedly failed to resolve. A desysop in this situation is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. Not only that, but there was no abuse of the admin tools, nor allegation thereof, nor was there any notable movement to desysop throughout the case progression. When proposed in the workshop, the feedback was overwhelmingly negative, and the proposal was not even paid much attention. In the proposed decision phase, BHG was accountable for the problem and laid out a comprehensive plan to rectify the issue. No one even argued that her voluntary resolution would be inadequate, that there was any reason to not WP:AGF, or that she should or needed to be desysopped in spite of her voluntary resolution, for any reason. And yet, a slim majority voted in favor of desysopping, none of them adequately explaining why. "Falling below expected behavioral standards" is a generic justification, yes, but it's not sufficient when it's not a pattern of behavior and when the problem has been acknowledged and voluntarily resolved in good faith, and at no point did I see anyone even argue that either of those things were not the case. I literally can't conceptualize any line of reasoning that led to this conclusion, and the desysopped editor seems to be equally baffled. Any clarification from the desysopping Arbs would be appreciated. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  WP:ADMINCOND - WP:ADMINACCT - self preservation for admins I guess- no other admin wants this to happen to them. Good precedent to ditter other admins from this behaviour towards another admin.--Moxy 🍁 07:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  I understand the basic premise of preventative sanctions, what I don't understand is what led to them in this case. Yes, policy violations, but we don't just jump straight into desysopping for policy violations. Typically the violations have to be a pattern (which they weren't), that has proven to be unresolvable by lesser means (which they weren't). BHG was accountable for her mistakes and pledged to not repeat them. The community was not calling for a desysop. Reading the case discussions, it was never even on the table for consideration. Yet somehow we got to a vote to desysop, and no one's being accountable as to how and why that happened. That's concerning. Last I checked Arb stands for arbitration, not arbitrary. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Theres probably a lesson here about avoiding unnecessary & peripheral FoF. Other than the arguably excessive desysop I thought the Arbs got the core decisions for this case exactly right – but from what BHG is saying it's not the desysop that's making her retire, it's the debateable FoF. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• If we really do want to make Wikipedia a welcoming place for volunteers to edit, then we do have to do something about someone in a position of some authority who repeatedly makes comments like this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or many others listed in the case's evidence page. This wasn't "a handful of incidents of petty incivility", it was prolonged, rather more serious than that, was displayed towards just about everyone who disagreed with her over portals, and drove a number of editors away from the topic area, including me. BHG's comments on the proposed decision talk page hardly show accountability, on the contrary she repeatedly defended her conduct and tried to get the arbitrators to sanction other people instead. She did post this but only after the arbitrators had almost voted to desysop her, and even after that she pinged all the arbitrators to try to get Northamerica1000 sanctioned for this edit for some reason. WP:ADMINCOND is part of the admin policy, and it's hardly unreasonable to expect admins to stick to it. That standard is no different from what any other reasonable organisation would expect. Hut 8.5 07:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Well done, everyone! *slow clap* I've never seen so many "Findings of Fact" that whilst not exactly being "Findings of Fiction", are so horribly biased against BHG that they're laughable. Reyk got it right at the top of this section. Black Kite (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: which findings of fact do you object to in particular? With the exception of 8 and 10, most of them were approved by the arbs by large majorities, so I find it hard to believe they're as completely out of left-field, as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • 7 - so what? WP:BRD. 8 - so what? Was there any abuse of tools? No. 11 - Really? And I have some issues with 6 as well - saying that an editor is lying when they are indeed demonstrably lying - as at least one of the diffs shows - is not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. Should we be dancing around the subject and saying "this editor is being economical with the truth here"? Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    OK, thanks for your response. I haven't been following the case in detail, so I don't know if what you say about the lying accusations is correct or not. Like you and Reyk, I'm very disappointed that we've lost one of our best admins, and it's particularly saddening that she is walking away completely - I hope in time she will rethink that, and with a return to regular portal-drama-free editing, BHG would likely pass a fresh RfA in a year or two. But ultimately Arbcom have a job to do and on the evidence so far I'm not totally convinced they got it completely wrong. Evidently several people differ though!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Heavy-handed definitely but again, we voted for them. I do not agree with their judgement that BHG would be better off without +sysop, but I am hardly qualified to judge, being on the periphery of Portals in my entire on-wiki tenure. I hope she returns and displays her commitment to the project, I feel that most people will agree she deserves to regain adminship. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• There were better ways to handle this. BHG's uncivility was at the end of her portal work (and she was uncivil, lets be clear), however, she was never a "civility problem" pre this. Desyoping has little impact on addressing such incivility (it requires prohibition + admonishment, and if repeated, an indef), and was not only the wrong remedy, but even more so when set against 14 years of blemish-free admin work + 1.5 million edits (and in technical WP areas that need admin tools). Some of the Proposed FOFs (FOF #6, FOF #9, and FOF #11), implied a core of ArbCom had very strong views here, and were not for turning. I felt even BHG's hardest critics at the mega-ANIs, offered better solutions (in fact, few wanted a full desop, just BHG banned from their portals). Britishfinance (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have mixed opinions about this decision. The interaction ban and topic ban seem to be substantively related to the locus of the behavior issues, however I do disagree that the removal of the sysop tools was merited by the facts of the case. No one had established, and ArbCom did not even allege in their findings, that sysop tools were used inappropriately. BHGs behavior was inappropriate in regards to her personal attacks, name calling, and accusations of bad faith, however, as I have argued before in similar cases (TRM comes to mind), there is no case to desysop someone who has not abused or misused their sysop tools. No one established that BHG has ever blocked another user, nor protected any page, etc etc inappropriately. We can, and should, be able to sanction sysops without removing their access to the tools, insofar as the use of the tools is not the locus of the problem. If someone is misusing their tools, by all means remove them. But if not, then there is no grounds for removal. --Jayron32 16:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks for your time. Among other things, you were asked to arbitrate whether BHG's conduct was consistent with WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT and what to do about it -- if everyone was on the same page on that, we would not have arbitration. Only the committee can remove these permissions until a new RfA. I had hoped in the last community discussion that removing BHG from the area would have done it, but that discussion closed to send it to arbitration. Before that, I had hoped that when it came to AN, that the formal community requests to BHG would have stopped it, but it did not. And it is too bad BHG did not find a way to stop it before it ever got to formal community request. Moreover, what is unfortunate is that administrators and BHG did not find a way to stop this last year, long before it got to arbitration. I now hope that is a lesson to the admin corp, to somehow move heaven and earth if possible to bring an end to such matters of ADMINCOND long before arbitration. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have my own issues, listed above, with this decision. However, the decision to desysop on these grounds is not one those issues for me. I am very unsurprised that this arbitration committee has decided that administrator conduct, and not just when they are acting in an administrative role, matters. I am unsurprised because a lot of these candidates had told us as much in the election process (or had indicated as much during previous turns as arbs). We, as a community, then elected them. As indicated right above this by Alanscottwalker this idea that sysop conduct matters in all contexts is one that is held by some members of the community as well. If the community wants a different interpretation of the policy we need to elect a majority who hold that interpretation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Of the 8 new 2-year Arbs elected in 2019, it was 4-4 in terms of how they !voted on BHG's deysop. THe 3 1-year Arbs, !voted 2-1 in favour of deysop. A marginal case regardless. Hence why I think something as strong as deysop (and it is a strong remedy, from which very few (if any) admins ever restore), should not have been the first option (and especially so for BHG, given her +1 million edits in technical areas that need admin tools, and previous clean record outside of the latter-half of her portal work). It seemd harsh, and not reflective. If we want the "bear-pit" we have ANI, however, two mega ANIs on BHG's portal incivility never even came close to a deysop, and showed an appreciation of BHG's case, and how it should be solved. Britishfinance (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    I disagree with the idea that to desyosp we need some kind of supermajority of arbs. I also disagree with the idea that if ANI hasn't called for desyosopping in some way that ArbCom shouldn't land on that finding. I think if the community doesn't like our policy allowing for deysops in cases other than tool abuse the community should change the policy. I think your idea that before deysopping ArbCom should consider all available evidence about the sysop rather than just evidence of conduct in the case the most intriguing piece here (because the defense boils down to "I like BHG" a sentiment I share). Perhaps that's the policy the community should change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    I didn't say that we needed a supermajority. I didn't say that if ANI hasn't called for deysopping ArbCom shouldn't. Considering all evidence about the syop before a deysoping doesn't equate to "I like BHG", it equates to good artibtation, and is a core feature of justice systems all over the world in delivering verdicts. There were issues with the evidence ArbCom did consider (e.g. FOF #9 was a mistake). My concern is that the verdict was not a thoughful or reflective one, and I don't think that is a controversial thing to say. Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    I believe our arbitrators were thougthful. I believe our arbitrators were reflective. Even with thoughtful and reflective arbitrators we might end up with a verdict we disagree with or even "wrong", but I'm not sure how we get a vedict that isn't thoughtful and reflectvie as long as the arbitrators participating were such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    I agree, but I can be thoughtful and reflective, but where I emotionally react to a situation, can be wrathful; it is human nature. That is why most arbitration processes also have appeals and review processes, and other devices that allow artibrators to take a "time-out" to engage their reflective facultaties. I think the large ANIs on BHG were at times emotional, however, despite some of the emotion (understandable) at BHG in these ANIs, very few wanted BHG deysopped, even when it was OP'ed. Britishfinance (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    I've had very little interaction with BHG, so have no opinion one way or another on the case. But, I will point out that we do actually have an appeals process, even though it doesn't go by that name. The community can re-sysop her at WP:RFA. That's not a trivial process, but it has been known to work and it puts the decision squarely back into the community's hands. In theory, she could be mopping again by next week. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    I don't think there are many examples (if any), of an ArbCom desyop, being re-soped at an RfA. The verdict of a "deysop" seems to be a permanent knock-out for enough !voters to make it near-to impossible. Which is why a deysop of an editor with so many edits in technical areas (that needed admin tools), needed more reflection. Britishfinance (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    @Britishfinance: You participated in the discussion about this exact thing on the PD talk page, where evidence was presented that multiple people have been resysopped at RFA after having been desysopped by arbcom (and one example of this was provided to you in this thread as well). As repeatedly explained there, there is insufficient data to draw any conclusions what would happen now as since 2015, only three editors have stood at RFA after being desysopped by arbcom, two of them failed because of their behaviour after being desysopped and one (Fram) stood immediately after the case. There is therefore no recent example of an administrator deysopped by arbcom standing again at RFA with evidence that the behaviour that resulted in the desysop has not reoccurred after several months and not having engaged in other problematic behaviour in the meantime.
    You are entitled to dislike the outcome, but please do not repeat incorrect assertions. after people have pointed out to you they are incorrect. It's worth noting that BHG exhibiting this exact behaviour was part of what resulted in this arbcom case in the first place and contributed to the result you so dislike. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

    @Thryduulf: No, the data showed that nobody got re-syopped in the last 5 years post a deysop, and nobody could produce many earlier exmaples (only one if I remember) going back over 10 years. You protested that the recent sample size was too small, which is fine, but is doesn't negate the fact that it apears to be a very (very) rare event. Repackaging my statement as a falsehood (which it is not), and then trying to tie that to BHG's behaviour, it really (really) inappropriate of you; there was really no need for such a statement against me, and I ask you to reflect on that. I know that BHG and yourself clashed in potals, however, I have never been anything but civil to you (or anyone else, portals or otherwise), and didn't deserve that fro you. Britishfinance (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Besides which, I noticed a pattern during the dispute where NA1K would say something, BHG would say "No, that's wrong because of X, Y, Z, and also Q", and then NA1K would repeat the original statement without modification. I can understand why someone would describe such behaviour as lying, but I guess only some people can get in trouble for saying that. Reyk _YO! 00:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I noted at least five examples from explicitly incomplete data. But the point you repeatedly miss (despite being explicitly told it, multiple times) is that with so few examples of people standing and nobody recently standing who has had time to change and actually done so, it is impossible to say (as you have repeatedly done) that a desysop from arbcom is permanent. If you had said this once it would be ok, but you've repeatedly said the same thing even when you've been told it's misleading at best - multiple times - is really not. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Your own data at "User:Thryduulf/What happened after a desysop", showed only 5 were re-syoped at RfA, and it appeared that all 5 were before the last decade (which was the question explicitly asked of you at the discussion we had at here, when I said: Thryduulf, so no admin who was desyopped by ArbCom has ever passed another RfA since circa 2010?, and said that your data was post-2015, and, you had concerns about pre-2010. Using the terms above like "repeatedly miss", "explicitly told", and "misleading at best" is completely out of order from you, when it is apparent, even from your own data, that it has been a very (very) rare occurance for a deysoped admin to be re-syoped at RfA. If this is the kind of exchange that brought BHG to eventually "snap" in her portal work, I am getting a flavour of it. That was a very unfair and completely inappropriate thing for you to do to me, and you went to re-assert it. Britishfinance (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Reyk: interesting that that wasn't presented in evidence or found by arbitrators who looked hard for evidence of any wrongdoing by NA1K. I suspect (without having double checked) that in most cases X and Y had been debunked by others previously, Z was a matter of opinion that was not widely shared but stated as fact and Q was completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

They clearly didn't look that hard. What Reyk said right at the the top of this section is absolutely correct, except I'd word it differently - "another decent and immensely hard working editor hounded off the encyclopedia by more than one who writes garbage". Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Two thoughts about that. One, in the relevant section of the proposed decision, Katie said (and Beeblebrox/SoWhy concurred) that they looked really hard for evidence. Are you alleging all three of them lied about having searched hard for the evidence? Two, if you are aware of the evidence, why didn't you (or Reyk) submit it during the evidence phase? Banedon (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I should have, but I didn't feel comfortable wading into the portals morass, because in my experience people who write and defend garbage are often vindictive and have long memories. In hindsight it would have done no good anyway since BHG raised similar points in her own defense and, if ArbCom aren't going to listen to her, why would they listen to some random uninvolved shmo? Reyk _YO! 01:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see so many folks here suggesting that WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT be simply ignored, preferring to ignore WP:5P4 and only consider whether someone misused or abused their tools. Barkeep49 gets closest to saying what I think, but he's being too gentle. [S]ustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators... is clear. If BHG had taken some time away six+ months ago, we simply wouldn't need to be here. I think this case proved BHG's behavior and for that should have the toolset removed. I tried my level best to help with portal cleanup until stopping almost entirely because of BHG, but should she run for RfA with some contrition, I intend to support her candidacy. Maybe part of the issue is that only ArbCom can remove sysops and only RfA can grant sysops, so it's up to 15 (or fewer) people to decide where normally we get 100-300, but I'd gander it's fairly representative, and it's what we've got. If the community disagrees, it's a seven-day process, but there's no basis for us or ArbCom to simply ignore the sysop policy; it would be dereliction to do so. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, not that it should be ignored, but rather that the threshold for removal of tools under the guidelines laid out there had not been reached. Please be aware that merely because people have different standards than you do for defining when some threshold of behavior has become too problematic does NOT mean they are ignoring policy. --Jayron32 14:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't really want to make this about individuals, as I think it's a general problem in the community to put aside behavioral problems when content creation, etc. are positive, but you just said above that there is no case to desysop someone who has not abused or misused their sysop tools and If someone is misusing their tools, by all means remove them. But if not, then there is no grounds for removal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know how much more clear someone could be; that is a difference not in degree or threshold, but category entirely. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have basically zero involvement in the portal space. I have not really followed this case well (some brief looks mostly at the beginning), nor read the details. I've mostly just read the decision. However from what I've seen at the ANs I'm not surprised by it. BHG got ample warnings they needed to cut it out on their conduct. I've been privately thinking for quite a long time that if this ever goes to arbcom, BHG was probably going to get in major trouble. Okay, I'll be honest the reason I was nosy especially at the beginning, was because I was wondering if I was right about the likely outcome. Simply put BHG's comments were often beyond the pale. A lot of it didn't helped them make their point. it alienated plenty against them. There may very well be problems in the portal space. I don't know how to fix these and I'm no convinced RfCs are going to help that much. I do know what BHG was doing, from what I saw at the ANs, was often not helping. Unfortunately, this seems to be one of the many cases here on wikipedia where someone has for whatever reason, let their conduct destroy any point they were trying to make any any reasonable goals they were trying to achieve.

  To be clear, this means I agree with the desysop. BHG may not have misused the tools. But anyone who has spent enough time at ANs knows that no matter how we may try, lots of people treat the non-admin actions and words of admins as special. We may say they're just a set of tools, but the truth is more complicated. I mean even by official policy and guidelines, that isn't really the case. While NACs are often perfectly fine, there are cases when there is generally agreement that they should not be performed. And they often can be reversed simply because they are NACs whereas administrative closes often cannot be so easily reversed. Discretionary sanctions are also an area where only administrators have the final word. Back to ANs, it's hardly uncommon that an outcome is, 'well they've been warned multiple times before, but now that an admin has given them a final warning we'll see what happens'.

  So given the way an administrator's words are often treated as special, no matter that many of us, including me, often say they shouldn't be, it's only fair enough that an admin's standard of behaviour including their comments needs to above a certain standard. And if it falls far enough outside that standard, then they shouldn't be an admin. And again, ample warning was given in this case. And while it may have been over one area, it wasn't a one time thing. This kept coming to the ANs and I kept thinking 'is this crap still going on?' and 'is BHG ever going to learn before this goes to arbcom?'

  As for NA1000, I have had some concerns over their behaviour. But it wasn't very clear cut and since I couldn't be bothered looking very carefully, I was never sure if it was really that bad, or it was simply the extremes of BHG's conduct, that made me think there must be something there. It sounds like it's more the latter than the former. (This was the other issue which made me curious, what would happen to them since I was a lot less sure than with BHG.)

  Maybe this is the one area where we as a community 'failed'. I tried to be even-handed in my comments and so often said stuff about NA1000's conduct (or others). Maybe I and others uninvolved should have been clearer to BHG. 'As someone who has only barely scratched the surface of this dispute, all I can say is that from what I've seen your behaviour is far far worse and likely to lead to a desysop, which I would fully support whereas I can't clearly say that about anyone else.' Since that was what I was thinking for a long time. Maybe that would have helped, I don't know. But I don't think an admin should need that anyway. And big part of the reason I chose to be even handed was because I hadn't looked well enough to be able to reliably comment. And I feared if there was something there I had missed, me missing it would mean BHG would think my comments were worthless. So I expect some others felt the same.

  Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• To both of the preceding rationales: you both continue to ignore the fact the BHG both acknowledged and comprehensively offered a voluntary resolution to the behavioral problems, and that nobody presented any detraction to these resolutions, whatsoever. No one has or can argue that the desysop was necessary, and yet it was enacted. I'm still waiting to hear the justification. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Two thoughts on that. First, BHG didn't acknowledge and comprehensively offer a voluntary resolution to the behavioral problems in the Workshop. She wrote some things there, but from a cursory glance, didn't offer any proposed resolutions. Therefore it's arguable that any voluntary resolutions suggested now is too late. The remedies have already been passed. Second, about the desysoping, there is what is necessary and what is advisable. "Necessary" is a much higher bar than advisable; one could for example argue that it's not necessary to revert vandalism because so what if Wikipedia gets it wrong as long as Encyclopedia Britannica gets it right (you might not agree, but this is to make a point.) As for advisable, the 9-6 vote to desysop was pretty close, and every arbitrator who voted gave a reason why they thought it's advisable/not advisable. If you think BHG should not have been desysoped, the identity of the nine arbitrators who voted to desysop is public information; voting against them next time the ACE rolls around is the obvious path forward. The same goes for if you think BHG should have been desysoped - vote against the six arbitrators who opposed. Banedon (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The justification, it seems, is that making desysop the default, foregone result of an accepted arbitration case against an admin is perfectly ok because the community can just RFA if arbcom gets it wrong. Despite that being an impossibility obvious to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of modern RFA. —Cryptic 05:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It is by no means the accepted default position, even by me, and I'm one of the more hardcore admins when it comes to this sort of thing. And while I can't speak for the broader community, I can assure the committee is well aware of the odds at RFA. This was not an easy decision for us to make because we didn't want to lose such an experienced admin. The committee can only do what it can do, the community does not allow us to give anyone back admin tools. That being said, as I stated in the case itself I do believe that if an admin needs to be topic banned or interaction banned (or in this case both) by the committee, they are clearly falling well below expected behavioral standards for an admin. As a counterpoint to that, I think the community should consider that it is able to apply any lesser sanction that gains consensus to any admin. Arbcom only has to be involved if it seems desysopping may be necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
      • If an admin cannot be topic/ibanned at ArbCom, as it becomes a deysop (i.e. falls below the standards of admin, per above), then ArbCom for most admin cases is really admonishment vs. deysop. In addition, given that Arbs sometimes refuse a case because at most it would be an admonishment, then it does kind of imply that an acceptance by ArbCom of an admin case is very likely going to result in a deysop (although not default), and outside of additional later evidence being presented, the outcome can be largely predicted at the case request phase? Yes, the community at ANI has other optinos, however, my experience is that ANI is a difficult place to handle admin-related issues (I think that is a commonly held view)? Perhaps, it would be better to give ArbCom more tools/options – E.g. place an admin on "suspension" (with a topic-iban), with to be reviewed later? thanks Britishfinance (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • If by "acknowledged and comprehensively offered a voluntary resolution to the behavioral problems" you mean this, then it wasn't posted until seven arbitrators had voted to desysop her, which is rather too late to have any effect. Until that point she didn't show signs of anything like that, e.g. here or this. Hut 8.5 07:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Swarm: I guess you're in part referring to me. As I said, I didn't pay much attention to the case, and mostly only read the final notice (I mean that was posted to AN). So I'm not really ignoring, so much as not aware of the details of what you're referring to. I'm not going to bother to read the details since frankly I don't really give a damn. I doubt it will make a difference to me and in any case, even if it did, I can't change this arbcom case. (I normally don't really GAF about arbcom cases, one of the main reasons I bothered to comment here is as I said, because I had been semi-predicting this outcome for a while and wanted to emphasise from my POV, it didn't come out of the blue but even having observed what was going on from the ANs it seemed somewhat likely.) If BHG had resolved the problems with her terrible behaviour, well really mostly comments that were beyond the pale, months ago, I'm fairly sure we would not be here. (Even if there had been an arbcom case, the outcome would likely be quite different.) Yet she failed to. The community could have helped with that as I said in my first comment. Actually, while I concentrated on neutral parties in my response, I'll be blunt that I strongly suspect as is often the case, her supporters failed as much as neutral parties. Her supporters could have made it clear to her, in no uncertain terms, that her comments were completely and totally unacceptable and need to stop or she will likely lose her sysop, if not worse. However, I also come back to what I said in my first comment. Ultimately we are no ones keeper. As a community, we can try and help guide other editors when they go astray. But another editor's behaviour is ultimately on them. BHG was responsible for her behaviour. She did get some warnings of how atrocious her comments were. Maybe these warnings were not as strong as they should have been. But they were there. Yet she continued with those terrible comments over many months. Maybe she finally proposed to stop that atrocious behaviour in the arbcom case. By then, I'm perfectly fine with saying it was too late and she had to lose her sysop bit for the terrible message she had sent to everyone with the comments she was making, which should never be acceptable for an ordinary editor let alone an administrator. Let me repeat again. Her comments were beyond the pale. They should never be acceptable for anyone let alone an administrator. I think it's entirely reasonable that me, and maybe plenty of others, don't want people who persist in saying such things to function here as an administrator. Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I must say that I'm disappointing to see BHG desysopped, BHG has always been civil from what I've seen from them (though to be fair some of this diffs show otherwise) and BHG always makes strong arguments in discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) You clearly haven't been following the Portals topic area then, as "always civil" and "always makes strong arguments" are approaching the exact opposite of BHG's behaviour in that area. Outside the portals sphere, my (more limited) experience is that she is average to above average in terms of civility and strength of argument but not exceptional (FWIW I don't claim to be exceptional either). Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes I haven't had much involvement in the portals area. But at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Isle of Wight and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lincolnshire BHG has made strong arguments about the problems with them and how readers (and editors) would be better off without them. And to clarify my disappointment doesn't translate to the removal of the map as necessarily a bad thing since admins are usually expected to conduct themselves higher than other users but just that its a shame that this has happened and more so that BHG is leaving. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

    @Thryduulf: I don't think many of us claim to be exceptional, but what's really an interesting question is what reaction is acceptable if and when do you get called out on some aspect of your civility or other admin conduct. What seems to have happened here is that a significant number of editors felt BHG's conduct in the Portal sphere had gone beyond acceptable levels of civility. But instead of being introspective and acknowledging that those people might have a valid point (and that could apply even if she hadn't yet been convinced in her own mind that said conduct was unacceptable), it looks like she has continued fighting and battling the accusation, dismissing it as unfounded, even to the present day. I can't blame BHG for having the courage of her convictions, and for doing what she personally feels is the right thing to do, but equally there's an argument that if you decide to go down "all guns blazing" then you can't be too surprised when the community takes a harsher line on this than they otherwise would. We saw a similar thing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama, where an admin broke the rules and was called to Arbcom. And likewise, instead of doing a mea culpa and apologising, they continued fighting to the bitter end. In both cases, a different set of behaviours in the Arbcom cases would surely have avoided a desysop.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

    • @Amakuru: Yes. Everyone, but especially administrators, need to be able to respond to feedback that their behaviour is not appropriate by changing it not doubling down - the ones that do almost never get as far as arbcom. I'm still not convinced BHG understands why so many people regard her behaviour around portals as problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• +1 I'm also disappointed to see BHG desysopped, Their desysopping as well as them leaving really is a great loss to the Project. –Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It is however a loss entirely of her own making. If she had listened at any of the many AN/Is etc and changed her behaviour accordingly we wouldn't be here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • This is the attitude I really don't understand. Did BHG lose perspective, comment inappropriately, and contribute to a dispute? Yes, I think she did. Would her taking note of ANI feedback have helped? Yes, I think it would have. Is everything here BHG's fault? Not by a long shot, IMO. Could we, as a community, have done more, either to support / help BHG in dealing with problems, or to help her to step back? Likely.
    • There is a conflict over portals that has been going for months. Thousands of portals created and (most) subsequently deleted. Mass MfDs to deal with the poor quality additions. RfCs. Plenty of stand-alone MfDs reducing the number of portals well below the number at the start of it all. So, we've had thousands of pages involved in a multi-month conflict, ANI discussions, and finally an ArbCom case that agrees there is a need for guidelines and policy framework and suggests one or more further RfCs. And with all of that background, the only step ArbCom needed to take to end the dispute was TBan and desysop BHG. Note that BHG's positions were largely backed by community consensus in RfCs and MfDs.. but somehow, with her removed, there is no problem that won't resolve itself in an RfC and with time. I just don't understand how this can seem a reasonable conclusion here. That we only ended up here because of BHG, that without her the many added Portals would have been dealt with but without the conflict, that the RfCs and MfDs would have reached consensus (as she was the problem), that Portal space would not be an ongoing source of conflict... do any of these conclusions about a post-BHG Portal situation seem credible? If BHG had listened and reflected more, it is likely that her situation would have been different, I agree... but the fundamental problems of the purpose of Portals, their content and maintenance, the policy and guideline framework, and the disagreements about what is or is not spam, a reasonable stub, or a low-quality page that is or isn't worth keeping, all those would remain. ArbCom found (or was shown) insufficient evidence of behavioural problems that rose to an ArbCom finding except for BHG. I am skeptical that all that contributed to this sprawling dispute over months is truly only BHG's fault because conflict usually requires two or more sides / parties. I think it naive to believe / expect that everything is on the path to resolution with BHG gone. And the loss here is a loss for WP, unless anyone wants to argue that her contributions over more than 10 years and a million edits aren't an asset to the encyclopaedia and its content. EdChem (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
      • I am skeptical that all that contributed to this sprawling dispute over months is truly only BHG's fault because conflict usually requires two or more sides / parties - are you drawing conclusions based on intuition instead of evidence? Remember, three arbitrators said they looked hard for evidence of wrongdoing by NA1K and didn't find it. Banedon (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I said that ArbCom found (or was shown) insufficient evidence of behavioural problems that rose to an ArbCom finding except for BHG. So, there could be sufficient evidence but it was not presented to ArbCom. There could have been evidence of problems but which they judged insufficient for findings at the ArbCom level (as some noted). I didn't mention NA1k, but since you have, it's worth remembering that ArbCom won't make findings if someone is not a party to the case, so other factors in the conflict could be behaviours of non-parties. You are welcome to think that it is logical that a multi-page, multi-month conflict all happened because of a single editor. I think it is unlikely. EdChem (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
          • @EdChem: I would in part agree with you. I doubt it's only BHG's fault. But I'm also fine with accepting arbcom's finding that no one else's who's conduct they analysed arose to a level requiring sanction. There are 2 points here. First is that with most long running and highly contentious disputes, conduct on all sides is hardly stellar. Still it doesn't mean everyone's behaviour is equally bad. When an editor likes to say another editor has a low intelligence, IMO something had gone seriously wrong and needs to be stomped outed. Ultimately arbcom has to decide whether the behaviour they've seen is enough to warrant sanction and it's IMO something which is not only very difficult, but often going to vary from person to person and for which you can never come up with a solution which easy to assess yet seen as the right solution to many. But the other thing though, is there are always going to be fundamental disputes over how we do stuff here. I mean heck, to some extent some of the issues here are probably such fundamental disputes, should BHG have been desysoped, should we treat offensive comments lightly because the editors do good work etc. The portal area is one where such a fundamental dispute is currently active. I don't know how or if it will be resolved. Some of us, like me, DGAF really what happens. BHG and NA1000 (and others) clearly care a great deal largely on opposite sides. While there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that it does mean tensions are likely to arise, and again behavioural standards are probably going to drop. Yet the fact that editors care a great deal and have almost diametrically opposed views isn't in itself wrong IMO. Anymore than disputes between deletionists and inclusionists in other areas. In other words, a big part of the reason why there is a long sprawling dispute is probably no one's 'fault'. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)