Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Oversight permissions removed due to inactivity

Original announcement

@Doug Weller: The signature links for most of the supporting arbs seem broken with random letters or numbers. Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What's the with suppression? NE Ent 11:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The arb-wiki has special logins (to encourage security), with random letters after the username. It looks like this motion was voted on at the Arbwiki and copied across with the random letters included, thereby smashing that security. Could I suggest that the arbs change their signatures on the arb wiki to be their standard wiki signature, to prevent that happening in future? I thought that was standard procedure all ready. Worm^TT(talk) 12:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The provisions of Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy do not justify suppression. If there is a security concern, the logical response would be to close existing account "arb xyz123" and create "arb (string from random.org)". NE Ent 11:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that a username for another site, which was not made public intentionally, falls squarely into "Removal of non-public personal information", and therefore suppression is the correct solution. Worm^TT(talk) 11:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this solution would be preferable. Suppression seems reasonable (per WTT), though I am also not terribly concerned about the leak of these slightly-modified usernames, as they are useless without also knowing the account passwords. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• And the two CheckUsers (Coren & Deskana) who are also inactive? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We'll need another motion for that. Good idea about sigs on Arbwiki. Doug Weller (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I do wish I had known this was so close to being done anyway, Ron seems like a nice enough guy and I didn't want to besmirch him in any way, but... well you but what, he never used the tool. Anyhoo, thanks for handling it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Tiptoety resigned recently too... you may want to remember him --Rschen7754 18:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=694302906> went missing. Now I see that others noted this as well. (Oddly, the logs don't seem to mention the suppression.) The use of suppression seems questionable here. I see that <https://arbcom-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=history> has also been redacted using suppression. Silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of the suppression policy would cover it if that is the case. Prodego ^talk 06:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Original announcement

• What a total farce. As a collective group you have been a complete embarrassment. Krill should have been smacked for his foolishness ... Yng should be applauded for common sense. Congratulations for a Christmas eve gift of stupidity. — Ched :  ?  03:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The mountain has laboured ..." (Aesop) comes to mind. Collect (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss comes to mind for me. Although Aesop did indeed spin some very fanciful tales. — Ched :  ?  03:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input Dave Dial. — Ched :  ?  03:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• The more I think about this the more astounded I am. A case that should have NEVER been accepted as framed. User:Kirill Lokshin should be ashamed for his behavior, and should have been held accountable. Instead we have a declaration of sanctions on Christmas eve. Arbcom feels content to cherish and coddle certain admins .. but have no reservations about sanctioning the people who actually write the articles. As individuals you may be admirable. As a collective group you have been an utter disgrace. As this entire situation resulted from a discussion at User:Jimbo Wales, I think it is very distasteful that Jimbo declines comment. Many of us disagree, but that does not mean we should be sanctioned. Arbcom 2015 - you have failed. You have failed this project, and you have failed yourselves. — Ched :  ?  05:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Ched, you argue as if there was anything seriuz about this case. Listen to Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110, first performed on Christmas Day 1725, text from a psalm: May our mouth be full of laughter. Merry Christmas everyone (details on my talk), and may this case mercifully be forgotten as soon as possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Now after Christmas, the laughing turns bitter realizing that Black Kite - who did the "right thing" if you ask me - retired, and I can even understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: And worse, the cause of the drama is now an Arbitrator again. On a ticket of rushing blindly at everything in order to meet deadlines. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

2016

peace bell

I think Black Kite retired is worse than someone elected whom I opposed. We should look at what the arbs do, and comment. In 2013, when an arb was "deeply concerned" about something he hadn't really looked at, and none of the colleagues intervened, so also hadn't looked other than superficially, should be over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. Black Kite is a loss which a sane committee could have avoided. Agree also with Rich, though - we'll see more about that re-election, and it won't be anything good. Begoon ^talk 19:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We see something good, looking at today's TFA: Falstaff, a comic opera: don't take anything here too seriuz. Needless to say: it pleases me that it comes again with an infobox. (I had tried one in 2013, - one of my allegedly disruptive edits.) Thanks and fond memory to Viva-Verdi! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• The wheels started to come off between here and here. The "purpose of Wikipedia" creep is what keeps creating these pointless ArbCom cases. It's pretty clear that the Abortion ArbCom case was very clear regarding politics: it had no place in creating the encyclopedia. Today's version of "purpose" basically subdues creating the encyclopedia to whatever political position induces arbitrary feelings of "camaraderie and mutual respect." Further, the burden has been shifted from "respecting the contributor" to punishing the contributor that has been adorned with a scarlet letter. The "Abortion" ArbCom case got it right: The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. It ends in a period. Furthermore, it highlights partisan political bickering as detrimental. This case makes it clear that the politically correct view rules over the creation of the encyclopedia. Sorry, but gendergap beliefs and objectives are political by nature and create political factions. Thain, the "Abortion" case nailed it: Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited. Closing the gendergap may be a noble goal. So is World Peace and ending hunger and eradicating communicable diseases and defeating communism (see what I did there?). But none of it is why we are here and "reminding the community" that a pet political goal is larger than the purpose of Wikipedia is why ArbCom is failing so miserably at serving The Encyclopedia. Go reread the the creeping purposes and go back to when we realized that Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited because the purpose creep to include agendas is detrimental to why we are here. --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, thank goodness it's finally come to an end, and done and dusted before Christmas, more or less (in the wee small hours of Christmas morning here, when some folk will still have been busy wrapping up parcels to put under the tree, and children just about to wake up and start opening them). What a waste of so many good editors' time and energy! Season's greetings to all who are celebrating Christmas, winter or summer solstice, Yule, or anything else around now, and let's get back to building an encyclopedia. Thanks to the Arbs for finally getting it closed so we can start 2016 without it hanging over us all. PamD 09:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Kharkiv07 as I only see see 4 votes to close the case, and it looks like 11 arbs participating. The close appears to be completely out of order as it doesn't have the required 6 votes. It needs to either be explained within policy, remedies with more votes, or reopened. You Arbs made the mess, you don't just get to walk away from it. I was going to drone on about how incompetent The Arb of 2015 has shown to be, but it seems pointless, and covered under WP:BLUE at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to close "motion to close requires the support of the lesser of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority" --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to point this out. Needless to say I'm not pleased with the outcome since most of the remedies I supported failed. I hope if it comes back to us, which it probably will, we can do better. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I stand corrected. I was not aware that less than 1/3 could shut down a case against a super majority, theoretically 27% to 73%. That does sound counter-intuitive to the average pleb here on the bleachers. And if it comes back (and it will) it might be better to simply decline the case. Perhaps future ArbComs should take the Hippocratic oath: "...either help or do not harm..." Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown It's "net 4". "each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support". Doug Weller talk 16:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation but I get that, my point is that it can be easily gamed with very little collusion required, and given enough time, it will be. Then "double jeopardy" claims and other forms of drama will ensue. Not relevant here (only a fool would oppose closing this case), and not your fault, I'm just saying the rule seems to have a gaping flaw that begs for exploitation by 4 Arbs wanting to protect someone. No less likely than an admin giving up their bit to unblock an editor, for example, except there would be no personal consequences. Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but it is still flawed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: There is a 24 hour delay, although there is "net four" mechanism for overriding that delay... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC).

• Am I the only one that finds remedy 1.1 ambiguous? Elsewhere (page protection, for example) a request for admin action is distinct from the action itself; the latter may result from the former but does require it. Thus, a non-admin has to request page protection but an admin may simply protect a page without a request. Is this the usage the committee intended in the remedy? A literal reading would suggest that I, an admin, may sanction Eric without discussion but that a non-admin must submit a request which must then remain open for 24 hours. I'm finding it hard to imagine that's actually what the committee intended because it seems like a recipe for Arbitration Enforcement 3 in a few months time. CIreland (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This is no different to any other administrative action in that a non-admin must request it but an admin has the choice of either directly acting, or placing a request for action. The latter may happen due to their being involved, or it simply not being clear cut and them wanting a second opinion or discussion first. All that is new here is that if there is a request made at AE, by whomever, it needs to be open for at least 24 hours before action unless there is a good reason for quicker action. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. You say "if there is a request made at AE, by whomever, it needs to be open for at least 24 hours before action unless there is a good reason for quicker action." I don't see the latter part of that statement in the decision. Perhaps you need to file an amendment request? Surely we didn't spend all this time waiting for an arbcom decision that would help clear this up to have an arb immediately muddy the waters with an eminently gameable "unless there is a good reason for quicker action"? One could almost ask "what was the point of any of it", in that case, since I don't see how that leaves us any further on than the "bicker mode" we began with. This "good reason" is presumably defined somewhere in a way that won't leave us exactly where we started? Begoon ^talk 16:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in 1.1 that supports the idea of a shorter term of discussion of EC's enforcement requests at AE for any reason. That failed at the PD stage. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case I'm even more confused by what Thryduulf said above. I was recently confused by his statements elsewhere, though, directly asked for clarification, and received none, so perhaps I expect too much. I do appreciate your reply. Begoon ^talk 17:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Go with what is written on the PD page if I have misremembered it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

As for your requested clarification, I explained that I do not support revdelling the block from the log because it was a block made in good faith not as an act of abuse and the log entry does not contain any abuse, libellous statements, outing or similar. A non-empty block log is not a mark of shame or a stain on an editing record, it is simply a log of blocks and unblocks made on a user's account. The log entries [i]must[/i] in all cases be read to understand why a user was blocked or unblocked and you must read any links in them to understand the context of a block/unblock before it is possible to draw any conclusions. In the same way that an empty block log does not imply that a user is or is not a valuable editor, it simply means that, to date, they have not been blocked. If you want to change this, then the community needs to amend the revision deletion policy to allow it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Block entries usually only contain the reason for the block, which is usually a well-known policy. The discussion, if there was one, is not linked, because it will normally get archived in due course. This is particularly relevant to the unblocks. They often talk about a discussion without pointing to where it was. To be sure, a blocking admin will normally have a valid reason for a block already, and will be looking at the block log for guidance on the appropriate duration. Here I think the unblocking admins should be more clear about what they mean. eg "Did not constitute a legal threat" could be taken to indicate concurrence with the block length for a bona fide legal threat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• This case was the Wikipedia equivalent of keeping sour milk long after its expiration date while pretending that it still tastes good. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  Except that there were some 93 people pointing out the milk was sour when (or even before) it was bought, and their comments were marginalised, a bad case of "Nanny knows best". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC).
  

  "This one time at the grocery store..." Kurtis ^(talk) 17:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• See you all again in a couple months when the behavior of the same people repeats. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• You people are grasping at straws to find something to be outraged about. Emotions aside, the facts were relatively straightforward, and ultimately ArbCom didn't deliver any sweeping "solutions", good or bad. The Eric remedy is nothing but a shot in the dark to try something that might or might not result in less drama. The admonishment is in response to straightforward misbehavior, is exceptionally lenient, and long, long overdue. The endorsement of the original block as valid is common sense and quite obviously the community is firmly behind Kiril. Swarm ♠ 19:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case amended

Original announcement

• Thanks for one step back to normality, even if it is very small and very late. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC).
  

2016 Arbitration Committee

Original announcement

• It's a very minor issue, but I'll just note that whoever wrote the announcement misspelled "Callanecc". Anyway, congratulations (and sympathies) to the new arbitrators! Biblioworm 19:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• There's also a grammatical issues with "AGK are" instead of "AGK is". The problem is that the phrase "are remaining on the functionaries list" should have come first, and then the two exceptions regarding AGK should have followed, with "is". (Sorry about being pedantic, but I do edit Wikipedia, after all.) BMK (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It reads correctly to me. all of the outgoing arbitrators is inherited by the second clause --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Really? I certainly understood its meaning, but it sounded quite odd to me, as opposed to:

"By their request, all of the outgoing arbitrators are remaining on the functionaries' mailing list except AGK, who will stay on after 31 December only until existing business is concluded."

BMK (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: No, actually, it is quite opposite: all of the outgoing arbitrators [...], except AGK, are staying on after 31 December to conclude existing business. (commas added by me). That means that AGK is the only one who is not staying after 31 December, opposite of what you wrote. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly did not get that, so there is a certain amount of ambiguity about what was writte, which might have been clearer as:

""By their request, all of the outgoing arbitrators except AGK are remaining on the functionaries' mailing list after 31 December until existing business is concluded."

BMK (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

BMK, keep in mind that the arbs (except AGK) will remain on functionaries-l indefinitely and not just until current business is concluded. Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 03:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Both Vanjagenije and L235 are correct. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I'm afraid I do not understand the statement at all. Presumably the stewards it was addressed to will. BMK (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Problem is trying to shoehorn it all into one sentence. Slightly longer version: the outgoing arbs will all retain access to the functionaries mailing list, except AGK. Various outgoing arbs are retaining access to one or both of CU and OS, subject to the usual activity requirements (which didn't apply when they were arbs). Some people are also retaining access to the clerks mailing list. All the outgoing arbs except AGK will remain active in the one ongoing case (Kevin Gorman), which means they have access to at least one of the arbitration committee mailing lists until that case concludes. In passing outgoing Arbs do not remain active in any ARCA or similar matters, and any votes they made on current ARCAs get struck on January 1. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Thanks for the explanation, which was, indeed, somewhat longer, but had the distinct benefit of being understandable. BMK (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I mostly write about naval history, tedious detail is my speciality. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• There's also a grammatical issues – Muphry's law, perhaps? — Earwig ^talk 21:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The announcement somewhat bizarrely doesn't include a link to the election results: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015#Results. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I just removed the CU and OS rights of Seraphimblade and the CU rights of Thryduulf, see the diff on meta. AGK his rights were removed on 12 December already. Trijnstel_talk 23:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case closed

Original announcement

Great, so you just topic banned someone who actually took sourcing, synth, NOR policies seriously, who was under an interaction ban with an editor who consistantly over a period of months broke it in order to needle them, yet you wont ban someone who calls another editor a cunt. Great job! Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well done guys must say. One can be called names, get insulted followed and what have you … incivility has NO consequences on en.wikipedia it has become a playground for bullies and roughnecks. I guess some “SGIbot” will turn the articles on Nichiren Buddhism into a fairy tell yet again. Thanks for nothing and good riddance. You guys are going to administer en.wikipedia to death and incredibility. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Generic interaction ban wording

The newly closed Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case, like lots of other cases, includes an interaction ban, for which the default wording appears to be {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). Just a request — would you arbitrators start adding a link to WP:BANEX, e.g. the ordinary exceptions). please? Absent a link, this phrase might be confusing to people not familiar with the BANEX page. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's linked in the actual remedy, though apparently left out in the announcement. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Soap desysopped and banned

Original announcement

• That is definitely not something I was expecting to see today - or any day, for that matter. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Any additional details available? Prodego ^talk 01:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  This is based on a pattern of harassment of other Wikipedians in off-site venues. As with most issues concerning harassment and off-wiki conduct, we won't be going into further detail. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  Well this is utterly stupid, stop saying off-site, we all know it was on the IRC channels and this action was most defintiely not justified. I agree with de-sysopping him because even though he had issues, he never abused his rights, but it was a safe option to take but to ban him is utterly ridiculous...meh, we should always expect the worst and dumbest outcome from the arbcom and don't reply by saying that its only "indefinite" cause we know in arbcomspeak, indefinite means "fuck off and don't come back" ....Whatever issue soap had, you probably (no definitely) made it even worse.. good Job ArbCom (just Com, you guys have no idea how to "arbitrate" )--Stemoc 02:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Simply gobsmacked by this. Really need to have some information here. Jusdafax 02:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  As someone who was hanging out on IRC during some of the relevant periods is probably better for everyone to leave things as they are.©Geni (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  I've been critical of overly vague announcements by the Committee in the past, but I'm not really sure what we can provide beyond this. I think this is as much as we can say, though if you have specific questions that don't involve identifying targets, we can try to answer them if we feel we can. Gamaliel (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  All you need to turn it from "zomg conspiracy" to "makes sense" are three things:

  For <serious, repeated, etc> off-wiki harassment of <group> on <media> Y is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. Ban can be appealed to the arbitration committee, admin rights through RFA, etc

  IMO anyway. Prodego ^talk 03:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  Someone ought to talk to you about trying to use Logic here... SQL^{Query me!} 10:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I do have a few questions, actually:

1. Over what period of time did the alleged harassment take place? Was it a long-term pattern (I would define "long-term" as a year or more), or a more recent development?
2. Has Soap been warned about this behavior in the past? Was he sufficiently able to respond to these allegations before the committee decided to act?
3. Has the committee outlined a specific appeals process for Soap should he ever decide to request overturning his ban?

Hopefully the answers to these questions will not involve divulging any sensitive or personally-identifying information. Soap is a highly trusted member of our community; I'd like to believe that the committee would not have acted in such a clandestine manner unless it were deemed absolutely necessary. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The behavior has been over the past month or so. He was warned repeatedly, and the Committee was in contact with him via email before the ban and desysop were placed. The ban can be appealed, like other ArbCom bans, to the Committee. He is aware of this fact. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I needed to know. I personally hope that this ban is temporary, and that Soap will return once he gets his life sorted out. Very disheartening news, but maybe some time away from the project is necessary for the time being. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would only differ in one spot with what GW said, and that is the warning aspect. He was warned, but not by the arbitration committee unless I missed something. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

no, it seems personal, apparently he somehow offended GW on IRC and she took it personally..sorry but unless it was an "actual wiki related abuse", the ARBCOM should have NO control over this...at all. it is NOT their jurisdiction....again IRC =!Wikipedia...--Stemoc 05:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

From what are you drawing that conclusion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Its apparently obvious from the last comment he made before you banned him again on IRC...btw, #wikipedia-en is not under Arbcom jurisdiction so you should avoid using it as such..--Stemoc 06:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc: I don't think you are in possession of any special information, or have any valued insight on this matter. Please stop spouting shit, not every situation needs a dedicated drama monger. HighInBC 06:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc:, Per HighInBC, your assumption is incorrect and reflects the fact that you have not seen the evidence. The critical evidence in this matter is not public and the Committee will not be posting it - to do so would amplify its harassment potential. Further, consideration of off-wiki evidence of harassment is provided for in WP:OWH. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

No, But i'm more aware of the issue than everyone else involved in this discussion and yes i have information but I can't share it since it violates the ToU, i'm not an idiot so I'm pointing it out as i see it..and as it stands this was not something the arbcom should have been involved in at all, this was a personal feud or made personal by one of the parties involved and the fact that arbcom decided to butt themselves into this for the sake of one of its own is quite silly. This was never an arbcom issue, why did GW intentionally make it one?...The only course of action was and still is the desysopping of soap and only as a sign of the arbcom's involvement, blocking (yes its a block) him should NEVER been an option....This is a public issue, and as someone pointed out below, "Super Mario Effect" should have come in play but arbcom always seems to think its above the law somehow, they are NOT.--Stemoc 06:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Stemoc: Thanks for the reply. We'll just have to disagree on the outcome. My only addition would be that the issue was raised with the Committee by a third party, not by a Committee member. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Stemoc, I saw the evidence; it was baffling. The block/ban/desysop are perfectly in order. Kindly stop blaming this on GW, because I consider those comments to be a. lacking completely in good faith; b. clear personal attacks; c. totally silly since the decision obviously had broad support. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

And you are sure they were not taken 'out of context'?, again this issue began just over a month ago..this isn't an ongoing issue and if the arbcom starts banning people albeit admins for something like that, makes you wonder if there is honour amongst thieves ....I'm not a fan of eniki admins but soap was an exception, regardless of his personal issue, he did NOT abuse his rights on the wiki (he could have, he had many chances to do so but did not)..ironic how since the GG incident, seems like everyone on wikipedia is treading on eggshells ..its not me lacking completely in good faith, its the arbcom...a. they have just shown that they are willing to block people outside of their jurisdiction....b. are willing to involve themselves in matters involving their own c. Are trying to stretch their powers to the limit....Soap had one of the highest votes ever received by a candidate at RfA..so at one point we come up with a new resolution to fixing the ongoing RfA problem, and the next, we find a loophole to block them without a proper trial....It would have been 10 years for Soap on wikipedia in just over a week, that won't happen now..looks like there is a use-by-date now...one word could some this all up, pathetic. --Stemoc 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia and the Arbitration Committee are not justice systems or legal bodies. One of our obligations is to protect the encyclopedia and its users from harassment, which trumps any perceived right to posses administrative tools or edit the encyclopedia. Evidence of private harassment was presented by multiple parties and about twenty or so people (current, outgoing, and incoming Arbs) had an opportunity to examine this evidence and its context. I realize that you and many others feel that Soap was a valuable member of this community, and I'm sure I speak for other members of the Committee when I thank him for his service to the encyclopedia and the community and wish him well. But this behavior was unacceptable regardless of whatever our feelings about Soap or whatever excuse, context, or explanation can be conjured from examining public comments, which completely ignores private behavior which you are not aware of and I doubt you would defend if you had knowledge of it. Gamaliel (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are not the justice system then stop acting like the Judge, Jury and the Executioner!!!. Yes, protect the wiki, from idiots not from good long term contributors. The so-called evidence were definitely out of context, as I have been saying from the start and none of it were on "THE English Wikipedia" which is where Arbcom's jurisdiction starts and ends.. Congratulations ArbCom, because you are a group of people who have NO F idea how to arbitrate, you just made another (one of the 100's we already have on wikipedia) good editor a bonafide "sock"...Well Done, the reason why we have so many socks and vandals on wiki is because you people seem to "create" them out of your own "sheer stupidity..You can't even arbitrate a spat between 2 one-year olds and yet you are doing more damage than good over the last 10 years..Definitely time for a new ArbCom Reform, cause you guys act more like the people in an Asylum than the ones guarding them..--Stemoc 21:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

According to the policy Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment, this behavior is within the Committee's jurisdiction. I'm sorry you are aggrieved on behalf of Soap, but the Committee also has to consider the multiple victims of this behavior as well. Gamaliel (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Must have been petty bad behavior to bypass the Super Mario Effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 02:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well perhaps there isn't a rouge admin cabal after all? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Either that or more likely the SuperMarioEffect is less real than some think. If this had been a serious issue about misuse of tools then I could see the committee simply taking the tools away and leaving the former admin unbanned; but if this was harassment, and we have a ten to one decision by Arbcom that it was, then a ban is appropriate. Does indefinite without a minimum time period mean that the ban could be reversed quite quickly once suitable assurances are forthcoming from Soap? ϢereSpielChequers 08:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• And there goes 2 months in a row with a net increase in the number of Admins... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• All I will say is that I saw it coming and that I believe he needs to take a break from IRC in general. No further comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• This news truly saddens me. I have been present and involved in some recent issues with Soap, but I never expected this result; frankly, I think it might be a bit drastic, but that isn't my call, and I may be missing vital information. A loss of a great editor and admin, I will say that. What a shame. MJ94 (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• I for one welcome this new policing of the IRC channels. The perception that wikipedia IRC chans are 'not wikipedia' and that anything there can slide is what led to the throatpunching culture of IRC. Of course this just means now that all the people who really dont want their IRC activities held against them will migrate to a new Super Sekret channel they can control. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• I find this to be interesting. I don't doubt that Soap has engaged in inappropriate off-wiki behaviour and likely does need a break from the project, but it seems as though this decision was made with an unseemly haste. Feel free to take my sentiments with a grain of salt, as I'm obviously not privy to all of the details. I'm just speaking from an outsider's perspective. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• ?? The off wiki interactions I've had with Soap were strictly positive. I never expected to see this.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• In this instance, there's not a great deal more that can be said. I can confirm that the issue was serious and ongoing, that the Committee did contact Soap prior to the decision being undertaken, and that I fully believe it to have been the appropriate response. We will take action regarding off-wiki harassment if we can conclusively determine that the off-wiki account is operated by the same individual as one on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Please post the voting. Who voted and did they support or oppose this remedy. We elect trusted members of Wikipedia to serve on the Committee and to handle matters that require confidentiality. Knowing the vote helps ensure accountability and provides at least a little transparency. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jehochman: The voting is available under the original announcement link at the top of this section.Amortias (T)(C) 18:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen nothing but positive contribs from Soap so extremely surprised to see this...., Well It looks like Soap will be having a New Year away from Wikipedia!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: What is the reason you opposed this decision? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I second this question. So far we are being asked to accept this action purely on faith, yet obviously at least one ArbCom member disagreed. Jusdafax 04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije and Jusdafax: My opposition stems from the lack of an ArbCom warning to Soap. There was no real attempt at mitigation to resolve the actual issue at hand, in my opinion, and my fear is that this motion has only exasperated issues for all involved, forcing more harassment on those who have already been harassed. And we've seen it on Arb Mail to a degree already. Had I had a chance to opine in the original discussion, I would have, and would have commented about this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• What policy did Soap violate? "Pattern of harassment in off-site venues" is a hilariously awful explanation. That sounds like someone got their feelings hurt and went running to the police. Townlake (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  WP:HARASSMENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  Which he's continued with socks. Here in fact.[1] [2]. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  Those comments are definitely not helping his case. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  Case? — Ched :  ?  23:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  They don't reflect well on him. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  Just in case anyone thinks that this means I'm now suddenly against Soap, please see this exchange between myself and Prodego. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  How would one feel if they were banned without justification? His reaction is normal and something i was actually expecting and honestly will not condone....and regarding the Hand Sanitizer account comment on this page, I asked him about it on IRC and i was told by him that MJ94 tried to hack into his account around the time he stopped doing his admin chores and was more active on IRC than on the wiki...Our wiki loses more good users because of the abruptness of the arbcom, please stick to rubber stamping..--Stemoc 01:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  Yikes. I get it now. Thanks guys. Townlake (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Makes sense. I've had "fun" interactions with the person before (never called ArbCom/ops about it though) and really I just think he needed a long term/permaban from Freenode. I don't think an indefinite ban is warranted in this case from onwiki, as the offwiki behaviour was really just confined to one place and was easily solvable with a IRC ban. Socking though, definitely puts the issue firmly in at least giving him a year off from Wikipedia. I really see a view to a hopefully successful ban appeal a year from now. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• What, pray tell, is the difference (in this brave new world) between the perception of a lack of "judicial" transparency and an actual lack thereof? Perhaps we all need to reread our Kafka. Juan Riley (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  Some of the comments above sound positively KGBish. Though I am sure the arbitrary committee (oops?) have the best interest of wikipedia at heart. :) And don't attack me feeling this way. Look at the perception. Juan Riley (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable reading this discussion and seeing implied suggestions of possible wrong-doing without any clear and direct opportunity provided to address the issue. It is known that GorillaWarfare has been subject to mistreatment / harassment in the past, which is deplorable, though ArbCom being able to draw on the experience of someone targeted for attack is useful for its collective experience. I believe it is fair to her to ask directly... @GorillaWarfare: Were you the target of harassment which led to this ban? If so, was the harassment of others sufficient to justify taking action, and if not, did you consider recusal? I don't think there is any doubt that the outcome would have been the same, but I think avoiding any further speculative commentary by a direct response is desirable. Obviously, GorillaWarfare has the right to decline to comment. EdChem (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As stated above by Euryalus, My only addition would be that the issue was raised with the Committee by a third party, not by a Committee member. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I did not vote in this decision since it came before January 1, but my personal decision that a site ban was needed was based on evidence that had nothing to do with GorillaWarfare. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• @EdChem: Some of the harassment was directed at me, yes. As Euryalus stated above, concerns were raised by people who were not members of the Committee. The harassment of others was completely sufficient to justify a ban, in my opinion. As with any issue we handle, I considered whether or not I'd need to recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• @GorillaWarfare: Firstly, let me say that I am sorry to hear that you have again been the target of harassment. No one deserves such mistreatment and I am glad that you continue to contribute to the project. Secondly, I would have no problem with you or anyone else subject to abuse raising concerns / making a complaint / requesting action, though I am glad to hear that the request came from outside the committee (solely as I would anticipate recusal by an Arbitrator who initiated a request for action for harassment of themselves). I am presently involved in a real-world (i.e. offline) situation of harassment where police action seems increasingly likely, so I do know that action is needed at times. I am pleased to hear that there was sufficient actionable evidence for a ban to be justified so that consideration of the abuse you received was not needed as a basis for action (and thus the recusal question becomes academic). Questions related to recusal are not infrequent for ArbCom and I have concerns in that area, but those are better discussed in a general setting rather than here. Thank you for giving direct answers to my questions. EdChem (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to respond in general to the statements being made here and in the TDA case below about "nothing happened on-wiki, this isn't arbcom's business" and "banning for off-wiki harassment won't stop the off-wiki harassment, why bother doing anything", because I find that to be a pretty problematic view. I think the bottom line for me is that in a healthy community, you can either be a community member in good standing, or you can be someone who carries out behaviors that harm community members. You cannot be both, because no matter where you're carrying out those harmful behaviors, you're harming the community with them. We, as the "on-wiki" community, cannot force you to pick one or the other; you're free to decide it's more important to you to engage in an off-wiki campaign of harassment/doxxing/whatever (maybe you feel you're speaking truth to power, maybe you feel you're whistleblowing, maybe you just feel that by god, that person deserves it). However, once you make your choice and decide to go with the off-wiki harm, we also are not obligated to pretend you're not someone who's targeting members of our community for harassment, or to allow you to continue participating in our community and interacting with people you may be doing your best to harm elsewhere. On-wiki blocking of someone carrying out off-wiki harmful actions may not stop them from continuing those off-wiki actions (or from socking on-wiki), but it does draw a clear line of behavioral expectations: you can choose to be either "person who contributes to and benefits from the community and its work" OR "person who feels that participating in the community is less important than harassing community members" - but you can't choose both, because they're fundamentally incompatible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A sorry from Anna

I would like to explain my post at Soap's talk. I saw the brown box saying he is banned. It contains a link titled "annoucement" and that link is this. It is a version just before the edit that added "discuss this" was added. I clicked the announcement link and saw no further explanation. I checked his contribs. I checked cases and saw no Arbcom case for Soap. I thought, how odd, a ban, desysop, talk revoke, so severe, yet where is the discussion? I had to search at Wikipediocracy, that conspiracy-theorising, paranoia-fest of a tabloid site just to get a clue about what happened. Going there was a last resort.

Anyhow, I am sorry about my post coming across as drama. You all know of my distaste for that. I just wanted to say how the community may see things.

I have no comment on Arbcom handling this. We are talking about lot of very trusted and intelligent members all agreeing on what is best to protect Wikipedia. The last thing I would think is that this was about power or abusing it. That would be silly.

So, I have removed my post at Soap's talk. I meant what I said, but shouldn't have linked or expressed it that way.

Please, in future, if a matter cannot be explained, I would urge Arbcom or any backroom part of Wikipedia to at least make a statement saying that they cannot explain. The world outside of Wikipedia is filled with things kept out of public view. Transparency is so important here. At least saying why transparency is impossible may be a good plan otherwise the slippery slope. So, maybe "This is a regrettable but necessary.....unfortunately, to protect the privacy of.....sincerely wish we could provide further details, however....if at all possible, would....absolutely necessary....value transparency, however in this case...." just to show the community that the government here is, well, not like the real-world.

Oh, I was there and saw the day before, and it was pretty offensive and weird and I didn't know who it was but now I do and I made him go away. And I saw more of the same the next day and it was gross too. Trusting him as a sysop after that would be out of the question.

Please tell me if I am talking nonsense or have missed something terribly obvious. I often do the latter. In good faith, feeling sorry for the TLDR, and with great respect to all, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule, we do not go into detail on harassment issues to avoid perpetuating and drawing attention to the harassment. I personally feel that the fact that this was handled offwiki and that it involved harassment is sufficient to imply that we cannot go into further detail, but perhaps I'm alone in that feeling and we should be more specific. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. However, in the understandable absence of specifics, why not a statements saying that no specifics can be given? How about "This is a regrettable situation. Please understand that we would give specifics if it were at all possible. We have made the decision to not go into details on harassment issues to avoid perpetuating and drawing attention to the harassment." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a good idea. I'll definitely keep your suggestion in mind for future matters, thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody else has considered adding such a disclaimer. It would do wonders in strengthening the committee's relationship with the rest of the community. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's an extraordinarily bad idea to accuse someone of harassment without some evidence of what the accusation entails. Harassment runs the gamut from bothersome to illegal so leaving it open-ended is a problem. Besides the obvious BLP implications, it puts ArbCom in the position of enforcing Terms of Use rather than dispute resolution. These blocks/bans that are based on findings and accusations of off-site harassment need to be from the WMF Office as an office action implementing WMF TOU. This is beyond the scope of editor disputes and such things can explode with IRL consequences with such broad, defamatory language being attributed to a small body. --DHeyward (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

We have a Wikipedia policy on harassment, and have since 2005. It has had a section noting that "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning" for at least the last year. ArbCom is not enforcing the Terms of Use, ArbCom is doing their job; enforcing enwiki policy. I can't see any place where they accused someone of harassment without evidence - just places where they accused people of harassment without evidence you can see. And as someone who happens to prioritise the victim above the harasser, that's perfectly fine. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Well put, and thanks. I for one am satisfied with this response. I knew Soap years ago when I was on IRC, and found him to be congenial, intelligent and humorous. It was very hard for me to accept this action. I still suspect he may have had good reason to lose control, but whatever happened, it appears he blew it badly. Given the respect I have for you, I'm going to nod regretfully and urge other concerned parties to accept this admittedly extreme action. My best wishes, thanks again, and Happy New Year. Jusdafax 15:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If evidence exists but cannot be seen and verified, that's no better than no evidence at all, because either way it is impossible to confirm and and evaluate it. "Bigfoot is real, although I have no proof" is essentially the same as "Bigfoot is real, but I can't show you the pictures". Everyking (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The evidence exists and has been seen and verified, but your complaint is that it was done by the community committee specifically empowered by community policy to do it, which is complaint that does not belong here. To change policy, address proposals at the talk pages of the policies in issue or VPP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A big +1 to Alan, here. There's something almost-funny in this repeated insistence that the only way to trust arbcom is to make it irrelevant. We had an election literally a month ago, with a higher voting turnout than any previous election: it's very difficult to argue that the people who reviewed the evidence and concluded it was harassing can't be trusted to be telling the truth immediately after they've been endorsed and confirmed by a big chunk of the community. Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A good point in general, but just for the sake of clarity, since there are two related discussions here: the Soap decision was made by the 2015 committee, although the matter was raised during the transition period and the new 2016 arbs also had the opportunity to review the evidence. A couple others have already posted above, but to add to their comments, I also saw the evidence available and agreed with this decision.

On DHeyward's point, WP:HARASSMENT is a site policy. We have plenty of routine blocks with the generic summary "Personal attacks or harassment". We have a template, {{uw-hblock}}, which has been used hundreds of times. Describing an unwelcome pattern of behavior is not accusing someone of a crime. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

But that's not what's happening. ArbCom called it "harassment," not an unwelcome pattern of behavior. Nor did ArbCom outline the behavior that would differentiate it from more serious harassment accusations. A blocking admin for routine blocks better have a diff to support their accusation. Part of the harassment policy is WP:AOHA. ArbCom doesn't get a policy pass because "it's difficult." It's problematic to make accusations of harassment without context. Without detail, there is no template and furthermore it's extremely contradictory to downplay off-site harassment as a routine on-wiki complaint that is supported with diffs versus the "this harassment is so extreme we can't give links." It's either as severe as on-wiki harassment, where diffs are appropriate. Or, it exceeds on-site boundaries and diffs would be too much. Either way, it's a BLP violation to make such an accusation and cast such aspersions without providing the reason and the only body that should be making that call is WMF. I have no doubt ArbCom has the evidence but it's rather disconcerting that they are reluctant to engage WMF and Legal before calling someone a "harasser" without a diff or context. What aspersions, without a diff, are okay? Can I name someone, on-wiki, that has harassed me off-wiki? I doubt it because it's a policy violation which ArbCom is ignoring. --DHeyward (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's does not work. It is policy consensus that the community elected committee do it not the WMF. Moreover, whatever your issue is, it is merely answered by a slight bit more verbose rewording that conveys in the context of Wikipedia -- which is how Arbcom's words must be read -- the same thing they already said: . . . for breach of Wikipedia:Harrassment that occurred off-site, User is indefinitely banned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Go read how that policy is implemented. A) it's part of dispute resolution so a dispute needs to be identified (it isn't). B) Off-wiki Harassment is defined in that policy as an extension of "No personal attacks" and is an aggravating factor in the aforementioned dispute. My "issue" is that none of this is part of an On-Wiki dispute resolution process which is necessary for ArbCom to be involved per the policy you highlighted and ArbCom's charter. With just pure external harassment, and no underlying dispute, it's better handled by WMF Legal and Safety. ArbCom is not providing the nexus of a dispute and is really just naming someone as a harasser. That's not okay, potentially defamatory and unwise as ArbCom can't address real-world harassment. Making it invisible isn't addressing it properly. --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I had already read it, and I interpret it generally as Arbcom has in the motion. You must be referring, in this context, to WP:Dispute resolution, specifically its provision in the Conduct dispute resolution section allowing confidential off-wiki communication in resolving conduct disputes, and also WP:Arbcom, which explicitly exists for conduct resolution in hearing sometimes off-wiki communication cases. They have identified the dispute: alleged and then found breaching WP:Harassment conduct by an identified Wikipedia User. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the cart before the horse. "Off-wiki" is an aggravating factor, not in and of itself, a violation. Aggravating factors are rarely considered violations on their own (i.e. statutory rape might have an aggravating factor if the perpetrator is 5 years older than the victim; but we wouldn't simply find being 5 years older is a crime without the underlying conviction of a crime). ThNeither of these cases identified the underlying dispute that the off-wiki conduct aggravated. Many editors have off-wiki disputes and as long as they haven't brought it on-wiki, it's not been relevant. It becomes relevant when a disput on-wiki manifests itself. For Soap, they just listed the action they took (and I am much more comfortable with that) while TDA they listed a remedy without identifying a dispute which essentially accused him of harassment, but not harassment within the confines of en-wp. The problem is not that evidence was provided off-wiki or considered off-wiki, its that there was no on-wiki conduct or disputes being resolved as TDA has had no on-wiki conduct for 3 months. I don't doubt there was a complaint but if it's that serious that his off-wiki behavior requires removal, it should be WMF wide. If it's not that serious then why is this remedy necessary? Are we going to bring Twitter wars to ArbCom because two twitter users happen to be editors? If "off-wiki" harassment is now more than just an aggravating factor of an on-wiki dispute, the policy should be changed and the avalanche of complaints should begin (I have a few of my own). --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your equating any of this or these words to crime is nonsense. As for TDA, they specifically identified the dispute, something so long lasting, it required a prior case. As for Wikipedia editors carrying their disputes off-site, that's just generally odd behavior, which probably accounts for the reason why such cases don't come up often among the thousands of editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward, I don't understand the distinction you see between the wording in the Soap ban ("For off-wiki harassment") and in the TDA ban ("For continuing harassment"); could you elaborate? The main difference is that TDA's announcement refers to the prior context in which he was warned that misconduct in any area could result in a ban. Superficially, that would seem to be the clearer statement.

On a side note, if we must have legalistic analogies, could we use examples other than rape? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I read a synopsys and missed the preamble and just read Soap is banned and desysopped. Yes, it is concerning if the conduct is all off-wiki and the dispute was not tied to on-wiki behavior and their is no nexus of how the off-wiki dispute disrupted the creation of the Encyclopedia. Calling it harassment without constraint is extremely problematic given false light statutes that exist almost everywhere. As for the side note, why is rape aggravating factors objectionable over any other? Aggravating factors are not in and of themselves the issue. If you like, make it a harassment scenario where one party is a supervisor and the other subordinate. That's an aggravating factor in a harassment suit but is only an issue if one party complains that it's harassment. Harassment in the workplace can occur between peers as well as supervisor/subordinate but without an underlying and substantiated complaint, the aggravating factor is meaningless. It's essential to determine whether the underlying complaint exists before applying the aggravating factor. Peer/peer or supervisor/subordinate roles are meaningless unless there is a determination that harassment occurred. After that determination is made, aggravating circumstances are assessed. In this case, an on-wiki dispute needs to be determined before the aggravating factor of off-wiki harassment is considered. It's not clear that happened as the on-wiki dispute is not listed. TDA, for example, seems to imply that the harassment is unrelated to GamerGate but because his sanction extends to conduct outside GamerGate, he can be banned. Exactly what was the on-wiki dispute that was aggravated by off-wiki harassment? If we look at previous cases such as Lightbreather, it's clear that the off-wiki harassment was tied to an on-wiki case. It's not necessary to go into detail about what the off-wiki harassment was but it's essential to link it to the on-wiki dispute. We have many users that make disparaging personal attacks "off-wiki" but don't bring them on-wiki (I personally have experienced it as a victim). We rejected "badsites" a while ago and unless/until that policy changes, disputes that don't manifest themselves "on-wiki" are beyond what ArbCom can control. Accepting only a few "off-site" harassment cases would be arbitrary and unworkable. If the dispute is "on-wiki" then name it. The off-wiki and private evidence does not need to be disclosed but its hard to see why the parties and dispute are not named. It's harder still to see why language like "harassment" or "stalking" would be use when the policy specifically says real world and wiki world definitions are different and those terms are sensitive (See the harrasment policy and read the "What is Not" section). ArbCom doesn't need such wording to implement its will. --DHeyward (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

We have a policy, WP:HARASSMENT, that describes some unwelcome types of behavior. It is possible that someone will be banned for violating that policy. Are you suggesting that we (as in the community, not arbcom) change the name of that policy? Nobody has said anything here about stalking, though the common term "wikistalking" did turn into "wikihounding" awhile back; is that the precedent you mean? Or are you suggesting that this type of action should just be a quiet {{arbcomblock}} with no publicly identified policy violation? I'm open to considering how we implement and announce these things, because we're not here to put scarlet letters on people, but I'm not clear on what you're actually suggesting.

These arguments about "jurisdiction" and "aggravating factors" and so on seem to be grounded in tempting-but-unsustainable analogies between wikipedia processes and legal ones. The view that a specific on-wiki dispute should be identified drives a truck through the loophole Fluffernutter describes below - if a dispute is identified, so are the disputants and likely victims. This also seems at odds with your other argument that labeling the behavior is problematic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, a glance at User:Soap and User:The Devil's Advocate clearly shows ya'll do, in fact, put scarlet letters people's user pages. Or at least pointless big red stop signs. Which is hardly consistent with Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Conduct_towards_banned_editors: Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. The block log entries are more than sufficient without having to mess with the user's talk pages. NE Ent 19:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I agree on that one, but I think we need a community discussion on this, because those templates are used for more than just arbcom bans. There is a small (tiny!) discussion about potentially rewording that template, following the deletion of the "banned means banned" template, but you may be interested in making a broader proposal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the template would require a community discussion. The committee choosing not to use them for arbcom banned editors would only require a committee discussion, and, after it became apparent they serve no useful encyclopedic purpose, make it easier to gather the necessary community support for not using them for community banned editors. NE Ent 21:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: The wording is straight from the policy WP:OWH Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor. The operative directive is "will be." It's not "may be." It's policy that off-wiki must be aggravating an on-wiki situation to be acted on. The other terms come from policy as well, where it defines what harassment is not WP:HA#NOT: Like the word stalk, harass carries real-life connotations – from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct – and must be used judiciously and with respect to these connotations. and finally, from that same policy regarding accusations: WP:AOHA It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment..... I didn't conjure these terms from a hat. Considering all these terms are, in fact, written in the policy, I don't see that this is comparing wiki vs. legal process. If you cannot name the on-wiki dispute, then naming someone as a "harasser" is problematic. ArbCom cannot/will not point to the evidence of harassment. ArbCom cannot/will not name the en-wiki dispute that the harassment is aggravating. The presumption is that ArbCom has the basis for blocking/banning but because they cannot/will not disclose all the elements necessary in the policy, they should NOT be publicly declaring anyone guilty "harassment" because it has "real-life connotations" that cannot be ignored. This isn't meant to say the elements haven't been met, rather, the inability to disclose the necessary elements precludes harsh pronouncements. Blocking/banning isn't the problem, it's the declaration they are guilty of harassment. Policy doesn't support that public declaration. A quiet {{arbcomblock}} would be better though implementing that would require some thought, whence my suggestion it be pushed up to WMF after ArbCom has made a finding. They only do quiet blocks/bans and won't make a declaration. In addition, with global accounts throughout, WMF should also decide whether their office action is WMF-wide. Without that, the problem might just move to commons with access to email and talk pages there and WMF should have the opportunity to review. --DHeyward (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A quiet {{arbcomblock}} might indeed be the best way to do this in certain situations. I still do not think that the WMF would get involved in cases like this, and I agree that the problem might move to Commons. If I'm right about the WMF our only hope then would be Commons Administrators. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Doug here. I don't think it's likely or realistic that the WMF will get involved in this type of issue, knowing they'd end up doing it for all of their projects, but we'll have to see what they say. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: And they may not. It doesn't solve the problem that ArbCom is making an accusation that they cannot/will not back up. It's required that they do so by policy, common sense and common decency - if for no other reason than context. The accusation of "harassment" has requirements of disclosure outlined above in the policy and for sound reasons regarding the IRL definition of harassment. Refraining from the accusation doesn't change the ability to ban/block. The rationale that blocking without notice creates a trust issue with ArbCom is not a valid reason to inflict harm on the reputation of a living person. Protect the victim by banning if necessary but ArbCom is not relieved of the responsibility to the accused. Corporate HR departments learned this the hard way and ArbCom need not repeat that folly. --DHeyward (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Policy does not require the Arbitration Committee to reveal private information in order to "back up" the ban; in fact, it explicitly allows the Arbitration Committee to handle matters where privacy is important (Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy#Scope and responsibilities) and expects that arbitrators keep those matters in confidence (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators). I would say that common sense and common decency would also support this, per the points that Fluffernutter made so well elsewhere on this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But this suspension of transparency in the name of "common sense and common decency" is precisely the point where holes are created where trucks groaning with diabolically engineered agendas can drive right through. Perhaps another small independent and occasional monitoring committee should be created to oversight and ratify the propriety of decisions like this? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

And then a committee to monitor that committee to oversight and ratify the propriety of their decisions? More seriously, you might want to go opine on this RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's getting silly. There is a balance point if you are you committed to openness. As for Jimbo Wales adjudicating, he has repeatedly demonstrated he is compromised by not having the welfare of committed content builders at heart. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A quick point here: I have officially been an arb for all of four days and it is abundantly clear that successful diabolical conspiracies among fifteen people in different time zones communicating via mailing list are highly unlikely. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Goodness... all of four days! In that case, what possible distortions could ever develop? Do you want a system the (uninformed) community can have confidence in? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: You are correct. The ban does not. The accusation, does though. If you are going to accuse people of things that range from real-life connotations – from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct. I don't care that you banned them. What's sad is hiding behind "harassment" as a way to ban without scrutiny. ArbCom bans for many reasons even as small as "Not Here." But when the ban has to be hidden behind secret harassment instead of "not here," it raises a lot of flags. Again, the ban isn't the problem. In confidence isn't he problem. The problem is that ArbCom wants a "reason' to provide to the community. The problem comes down to trust and ArbCom is violating policy to create a mantle of credibility. There is nothing that justifies calling a living person a "harasser" without the ability for others to scrutinize it. A body that has the trust of the community would just ban users (those communities exist and no proof is needed to trust those in power). But here, the accusation is made to justify the sanction. The accusation is made because credibility is lacking but that lack of credibility is the same reason the community wants details. When ArbCom has the credibility to make a pronouncement that "User X is banned because they violated Wikipedia policies" - they can start claiming what private information that don't need to disclose. When theitr crdibility is so fractured that they need to accuse someone harassment - which the policy explicitly says can be "from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct" - theres's a problem. If you disagree, you can search for that phrase and find it verbatim. ArbCom should not be using terms and findings that are explicitly so broad and defamatory without context. Was the harassment "unseemly" or "criminal?" Without detail, ArbCom should STFU about harassment and focus on the encyclopedia and a ban. Don't couch it in an indefensible phrase and don't treat the finding of "harassment" as a righteous and undeniable fact when the policy on harassment clearly outlines how broad and unrighteous such an accusation can be. --DHeyward (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

We have people on this page complaining that we've given too much information, and people complaining we've given too little. There is frankly no way to please everyone. I disagree with you that a ban based on WP:HARASSMENT becomes defamatory simply because every user can't gawk at the harassment themselves. If you think this is the case, you should perhaps also consider taking this point up with administrators and oversighters who routinely revision-delete or suppress harassment by harassment-blocked users. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I'll put it another way: "Policy says that harassment is so broad on en-wp that accusations and evidence must be specific and credible. Situations that preclude publishing specific and credible evidence should not be called 'harassment'." ArbCom is granted many powers to block/ban/restrict editors that such a requirement will not hinder enforcement. I don't particularly care about revdel and oversight as they are less defamatory than a site ban (in fact, I've seen revdels overturned because the admin overreached). revdels and oversight isn't going to show up in an HR hiring search. Ste bans for harassment, however, will. If Google site banned my potential employee for harassment, I am not going to investigate "why." That Wikipedia defines harassment in it's policy as extending "from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct" might be relevant to wikipedians, it's not relevant to an employer. They see "harassment", "major website" and "round file." As someone that has stated harassment by TDA, would you be willing to testify at trial that he is unemployable because of his actions here? I grant that you may be willing to do so, and may be justified in doing so, but the next obvious, and inescapable question is "why?" As ArbCom chooses not to answer "why" (and for good reason) they should also refrain from the accusation. Ban. STFU. If confidence in ArbCom is lacking for such actions, the issue isn't with the accused. When the plague reigned in Europe and the people pressed the court for answers, they found "witches." While scaling them against the weight of a duck provided fair trial for floatability, it hardly proved witchcraft, or even less, accountability for plague death. Many would have complained about the process, but it's another fallacy to point to the number of process claims as proof of legitimacy. Go back to first principles: Is the conduct undeniably harassment affecting en-wp editors or users? If yes, does outlining the harassment cause more damage to the victim? If yes, "Ban indef for "Not Here" because those activities are not here to build WP. If no and the harassment can be documented, outline the harassment publicly and ban for the outlined harassment. Super Sekret Harassment charges and pronouncements are forbidden by policy. Note that the editor is banned either way. The only difference is the serious accusation is supported by serious evidence and the "not here" evidence need not have explicit evidence. Discretion is always the better part of valor and WP will be better of fby not tarnishing reputations especially when the secret evidence won't last beyond the mailing list. Imagine "I see you were accused of harassment and banned from Wikipedia for off-site harassment in 2001 and unable to find employment since. Why? Well when I was 14 I kept emailing an admin to lift their block. I was so frustrated, I created hundreds of accounts so I could email them." and that's the lucky person that gets to explain it. Who wants to destroy opportunities for "Clock boy" because they made a mistake on Wikipedia? --DHeyward (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt this hypothetical employer would distinguish between a site ban and a site block, nor do I think they would find {{banned}} more concerning than {{uw-hblock}}. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

"As a general rule, we do not go into detail on harassment issues to avoid perpetuating and drawing attention to the harassment." As lovely as that sounds, it conceals a big problem with the way the ArbCom operates. If we don't know what happened, how do we know that anything happened at all? How can we evaluate ArbCom actions if the ArbCom discloses nothing about the reasons for its actions? If the ArbCom voted to ban someone for something that never happened, how would we ever know the difference? I don't care about the specifics of the case—I don't need someone to assure me that all is well, or point me to somewhere to research it myself. I want the ArbCom to address the transparency problem. I want to stop seeing editors disappearing without seeing any evidence that they did anything wrong. Everyking (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's why I'm in favor of maintaining the final appeal option to Jimbo. If an editor were banned by ArbCom, and it were a truly arbitrary decision with absolutely no evidence backing it, Jimbo could certainly contact the Committee and say "What's going on here?". If there really were off-wiki harassment, he could be provided with details of why the ban occurred. If there were no such evidence, he would still have the option to overturn the ban and take whatever remedial action were appropriate. I can say, though, that while I was on the Committee, all such actions were taken only if the evidence was abundant and overwhelming, and anyone who knows me at all knows I would be the first to dissent (and not quietly) from any decision that was made on the basis of poor or no evidence. If anything, the Committee has often been accused of being too cautious to act in such cases, but it really does have to be shown to a very good degree of certainty. Anyone could register your or my name on some other site and start harassing someone. But providing full and public details, in a lot of cases, would be a violation of the privacy policy that arbitrators explicitly agree to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

One of ArbCom's responsibilities is "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons." This does not mean we must resolve them by making public matters that are unsuitable for public discussion. I personally think that the likelihood of every member of a fifteen-person committee being utterly corrupt is fairly slim, but if you disagree, perhaps you should start a push to change who handles such matters, and how. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes but this is neither North Korea or Soviet Russia, people will not accept an execution without knowing why..this is the "3rd" unknown ban or (firing) of an experienced editor without a valid reason in 7 days[though one is not related to the arbcom]...this seems so KGBish no? if this is the direction WMF is headed then its going to be a very slippery slope cause I'm surely not expecting this to get better..btw, the job of the Arbcom as i have mentioned many times above is to "arbitrate", stop playing the role of the Hangman. Banning is the FINAL option, not the ONLY option!.--Stemoc 01:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone was executed? How did we do it? Lethal injection, hanging, electric chair, guillotine, burning at the stake? And were the proper number of observers in attendance, as required by Wiki-Law? ... Oh, that's right, we're a website dedicated to making an encyclopedia ... so, I guess no editors were actually harmed in the making of this decision. BMK (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone known only by a pseudonym has been asked to find a new hobby instead of editing this website. Politely, it is something of a stretch to equate this with Stalinism and the KGB. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that people are not physically harmed does not excuse other forms of harm. Hyperbole seems a lesser sin than disregarding or downplaying abuse. As is clear from this discussion, we don't disregard harassment just because it only occurs in the digital realm. Everyking (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hillarious, You have to see the wiki as a planet on its own since we don't only have contributors but readers from every corner of the planet that use this site...Its a know fact that when the arbcom bans someone, they ain't coming back..their WP:SO has either failed or has yet to bring back a 'real' contributor..most good editors that do get banned are either forced to create socks instantaneously or move to other sites for a short while only to come back again with a 'clean' account ..no one ever LEAVES....not even those banished by the WMF, infact, especially those 'forcefully' removed by the hierarchy, either it be WMF or the arbcom ..I warned the arbcom that the step they took in regards to the banning of a long-standing editor was unjustified and it is, cause unknowingly (surely they have already figured it by now) they have created another 'vandal', a term i no longer associate with vandalism..Being banned on wiki is the same as execution, I won't be surprised that either or both BMK and Euryalus are the 're-incarnation' of banned editors --Stemoc 04:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've had my suspicions about Euryalus for quite a while now, but I know for certain that I am a sock of a banned editor, have been for all 10 1/2 years I've been here. I suggest that all of my edits be dele... wait... hold on a sec ... I know for certain... something... what the hell was it? Oh, yeah, I know for certain that you are .... oh, what was it again? ... oh, yeah -- purple! YOU ARE PURPLE! No, that's not it. ... oh dear ... it was, uh ... WRONG!! Yeah, that was it, you are really, really wrong, becasue I am not a sock, I am a GLOVE and damn proud of it. BMK (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You start with "Yes but", which implies you understand or agree with some amount of what I said, but then you insist on knowing the private evidence. Also, please note that the Arbitration Committee is not the WMF—we are volunteer editors, not employees. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The "Yes" was to the principal of the arbcom but the one you stated is at number 4, Why did you ignore the number 1 which is and to quote To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve...last i checked, in this case, the "community" was neither involved nor was there a case filed nor was proper procedure followed..the difference between this case and the "Devil's Advocate" case below is that only of of these 2 had "priors" so arbcom ignored rule 1 on this as well as rule 2 which is and quote To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users by blocking his talk page so that he can't fight this and yet somehow you feel that justice was served? so again, is this North Korea or Soviet Russia or is it not?...Yes, you are not the WMF but you were given this power by them, the community did elect the arbcom but not because they wanted to, but because we had too..--Stemoc 03:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If you read ARBPOL you would see that 1-5 are not steps but enumerate the powers delegated to the arbitration committee by the community. Further, the idea that the WMF made ArbCom or was part of the process of the committee's creation is patently false. The committee was created by Jimbo in 2004. That same year the first Arbitration policy was ratified by the community. In 2011, the second arbitration policy (that replaced the first) was ratified by the community. The idea that a power structure should not exist or does not have power over a user because they weren't part of the community at the time is patently false. Also, you are free to vote "no" to any and all candidates. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It runs into difficulty if the twisted interpretation means that ArbCom can sanction for IRC, Wikipediocracy comments or Reddit comments but not comments made on Commons or Russian Wikipedia. If the harasser says they are the WMF global user X and their comments were based on participation on Commons, would ArbCom say they have original jurisdiction since there is a common account? It's a slippery slope and en-arbcom is ill-equipped to deal with issues beyond en-wp disputes. The other stuff outside en-wp is aggravating factor but not sanctionable by en-Arbcom. Stomping their feet and claiming social justice does not change this basic fact. en-wp is A space in the WMF multiverse, it is not THE safe space on the intertubes. WMF needs to clarify that their arbitrary actions are a legal and policy quagmire. Their jurisdiction does not extend beyond en-wp and that includes original external harassment. Open an ArbCom DR case to establish jurisdiction and outline the en-wp dispute they are resolving. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "social justice" and everything to do with simple basic human decency and professionalism. If you're here to edit the encyclopedia in a constructive manner, you don't harass your fellow editors through off-wiki venues. Such conduct is corrosive and destructive to the basic principle of editors working together to write an Internet encyclopedia. Just as such conduct wouldn't be tolerated in a professional workplace, it shouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia. Let me ask you a question, DHeyward: Why do you believe that Wikipedia editors should have to agree to become targets for harassment, abuse and personal attacks to take part in editing an Internet encyclopedia? Do you think that the encyclopedia is more or less likely to be successful if it is known that editors are putting their personal safety, privacy and health at risk by deciding to edit the encyclopedia? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Another strawman. TDA is "not here" at all. The question isn't whether harassment should be tolerated, its whether ArbCom is the appropriate body to declare someone off-wiki as a "harasser." No workplace would tolerate harassment and would fire the harasser. But they aren't daft enough to declare it to the world and make such a public accusation. Basic human decency extends to all. Not naming the victim is part of it, so is not accusing a living person of a crime. ArbCom is wholly unsuited to make determinations of whether off-site conduct rises to a legally sound definition of harassment which is why it's limited to only an aggravating factor in an on-wiki dispute. The proper venue is WMF and it should be a WMF global ban. If someone complained about TDA's comments on Commons, its clear that ArbCom would not address it and point the user to Commons DR even though it's external to en-wp. NBSB: Why do you think it should be okay to harass from other WMF sites but not non-WMF sites (yup, same straw nonsense that you put out but it highlights that external to en-wp harassment is beyond the scope or ability of ArbCom to handle. They are limited to resolving on-en-wiki disputes, not random stuff on the internet and certainly not chartered to accuse another editor of possibly criminal behavior. ArbCom needs the context of an on-wiki dispute to bracket their definition of harassment and the nexus it has with an en-wp dispute). If the offsite conduct doesn't rise to the level of a WMF office action, then we should rethink what we are calling "harassment" as WMF is the liable party. --DHeyward (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of straw men, this chatter about a legally sound definition of harassment and accusing a living person of a crime is merely a violation of WP:NLT smothered in a sufficient quantity of sheep’s clothing to supply all of ArbCom with camouflage holiday sweaters. No one is talking about legal harassment here; if they were, they’d have called the police. We’re talking, plainly, about violations of community policy that do not require that the perpetrator be arrested and imprisoned for the public good, but that suggest to ArbCom that the smooth functioning of Wikipedia’s Project will proceed more efficiently without the violator’s further predations.
It is perfectly legal to violate any number of Wikipedia policies, and yet Wikipedia does not and should not countenance their violation. Why insist on such an unnecessary and impractical standard for WP:HARASSMENT alone? This is not the place to attempt to nullify Wikipedia’s prohibition of off-site harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to User:DoRD

Original announcement

• Yay. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• 👍 Kurtis ^(talk) 19:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate banned

Original announcement

I understand that this is not original action, but rather a follow on from an earlier proceeding. I also understand that this is likely purposeful, but unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible), this action seems entirely opaque. As I said, I understand that sometimes there is no way around this to prevent harm to third parties. Still, I would exhort the committee to be as forthcoming as practicable in these instances to avoid the air of the star chamber which attends such announcements. In the interest of disclosure, I'll say I was often at loggerheads with this editor. That's all, and happy New Year! Dumuzid (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. He hasn't edited WP since October. How is banning going to stop whatever it is that he was doing in the past 3 months and what was he doing that necessitated a site ban without a single diff? --DHeyward (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(Speaking generally here, because I'm recused on this issue). I'm alarmed at this opinion that has appeared both here and above, that Wikipedians can harass other Wikipedians as much as they like, as long as it's not happening on-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think people are so used to diffs and evaluating things for themselves that off-wiki evidence is immediately doubted and ignored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking specifically, that's not my opinion. It's clear that a site ban doesn't change anything here. If you would like help fighting it, the the bright light needs to be shown on it. Or, per WP:BEANS nothing needs to be said since nothing was happening here. But these types of announcements are like taking the worst parts of functionally "doing nothing" and fueling it with WP:BEANS. What conduct was stopped vs. the inevitable digging that will occur to understand who was harassed and to what extent? Really, it might be better to skip these announcements if the bans need to happen to stop harassment. For the victims sake, not the blocked user. --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if GW does not wished to be alarmed, she should stop making stupid straw man interpretations of what people are saying. "Wikipedians can harass other Wikipedians as much as they like, as long as it's not happening on-wiki." said no one ever. Star chamber proceedings make folks uncomfortable; "ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities," said Schroeder and Wagner, The committee can't fix either the responsibility of maintaining confidentiality nor the flack you'll get for doing it, but you can improve both the approach to notifying the community of sanctions and your own maturity in responding to the inevitable criticisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

References

• Responding to GorillaWarfare's comment above, while I can't speak for everybody, I definitely do not think that Wikipedia should ignore harassment of other users just because it occurs in other venues. All I ever really want to know are a few non-sensitive details regarding the situations for which editors are banned due to private evidence - if it was done as part of a long-term and/or egregious pattern, whether they've been given adequate notice, their options as far as appeals are concerned, etc. One problem that I've often had with ArbCom's handling of such matters is that they have oftentimes failed to communicate their decisions in such a way as to elude the perception of unwarranted secrecy. It has made the committee appear as an unaccountable body with the authority to make decisions outside of due process or community oversight. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• When we have to protect the privacy of victims, it is difficult to find a way to communicate these decisions in a way that satisfies people with completely valid concerns about transparency and fairness. And, frankly, there is a vocal minority who appears willing to dismiss any instance of harassment, no matter how much information we provide. Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• At that level of harassment, it should be an "Office Action" and they don't elaborate on "why" because it's detrimental to victims and the organization. Making it an ArbCom remedy is problematic because ArbCom exists to resolve community disputes and is expected to be somewhat transparent. No HR organization publishes firings for harassment, they publish policies against it. There is no global announcement that employee A harassed another employee and is now terminated for harassment. They are just fired. And for many a good reason. TDA, however, is a living person that ArbCom just publicly accused of harassment with no venue to respond to that characterization. This is the reason it needs to be an office action, if it's based solely on off-wiki behavior, because the risk of these pronouncements is too great, the information presented is too one-sided and lacks the "dispute resolution" mandate and replaces it with "terms of use" enforcement. If the evidence is as strong as postulated, an office action should be easy to come by. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Office actions aren't going to happen in cases like these. There is no way that the WMF would take over the responsibilities of ArbComs on 291 language encyclopedias. These are en.wiki's problems and these are the structures we have in place to deal with them. Gamaliel (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've left a note on WMF's Trust and Safety manager James Alexander's [3] page about concerns I think some of these new sanctions entail. He sounds busy at the moment. I disagree that this can be a responsibility of ArbCom without some tie-in back to a Wikipedia dispute that bounds the accusation of harassment. Particularly, "protecting victims" is exactly what the WMF Safety office does and ArbCom is not equipped to protect anyone or even decide what level of protection is necessary. ArbCom members are chosen from the WP community with no formal expertise beyond familiarity with Wikipedia. The example given on James' page was a future employer learning of these latest indefinite bans for off-site harassment with no context or bounds or details. One of the purpose of Arbcom being public is that such accusations are bounded within the decision and gives the accusation context within an on-wiki dispute (i.e. a finding of article "wikistalking" might be WP harassment but so would offsite IRL "camping in their front yard stalking" - context/seriousness is important). Without that context, no accusation should be publicly made and a simple Terms of Use ban by the WMF office is necessary because the potential real life consequences that accusations can bring. Being "Banned" is not such a big deal and well within ArbCom's role in dispute resolution, but accusing them of a potential crime in a vague "off-site harassment" statement is not okay and WMF needs to review it and hopefully implement it in a way that protects everyone. --DHeyward (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would love it if the WMF decided to take responsibility for harassment complaints. But they haven't, which sort of leaves us to do what we can. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Probably not if they have to do the leg work and investigating. But ArbCom requesting it after investigating is probably doable. It creates accountability and review and it gets ArbCom out of the accusation business. ArbCom emailing its conclusion to office employees, they review it, issue Office Action for TOU violation. It's not like they would be flooded with requests (no more than Arbcom could handle). There are some behaviors, though, that should be dealt with by WMF and offsite harassment is one. --DHeyward (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you can somehow get the WMF to take over responsibility for these issues, go for it. Others have attempted for years to get them to take over a small subset of incredibly serious matters (far more serious than what we have here) without success. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's not whether WMF will "take over" as that would require WMF to agree with ARbCom. It is, rather, a jurisdictional problem. ArbCom should be forwarding their results to WMF for action. I find that it's rather ridiculous to say that en-wp ARbCom has jurisdiction over harassment coming from "external sites" but if the "external site" is Commons, they can't do anything. It's pretty clear that the role of ArbCom in evaluating offsite harassment is part of an aggravating circumstance and not original jurisdiction. If TDA was on Commons making the same statements, would ArbCom defer or act? That's not an academic question, but drives home where ArbCom ends and WMF begins. --DHeyward (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• This, of course, depends on the WMF's willingness to do the work you describe. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I can think of at least one contentious case where they’ve placed a global lock for harassment; most of the related drama was on Commons (which of course has no ArbCom), mainly because the user was a major contributor there and already blocked here. Those discussions parallelled this one in several ways: complaints regarding lack of transparency and allegations of hidden agendas were only answered with statements that the issue had been raised by an independent party and thoroughly investigated by a group of impartial individuals, without revealing any specifics regarding the victim(s) or the means of abuse. I don’t see how kicking these situations upstairs would do anything to resolve the underlying tension between openness and privacy-protection. Indeed the WMF staff are arguably both more susceptible to pressure and less accountable to the community than ArbCom are, so I’d just as soon see the buck stop here. (I am ignoring the question of legal liability, on which I don’t consider myself qualified, although I‘ll be interested to see how the WMF responds to DHeyward’s request for input.)—Odysseus1479 23:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I completely understand - it's a balancing act between keeping everyone reasonably informed while safeguarding the confidentiality of the involved parties. Anna Frodesiak's suggestion in the Soap discussion seems like a great idea. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes her suggestion does sound like a good idea. The last thing we want to do is perpetuate the harassment by repeating it. If the community really wants us to ignore offsite harassment ok, but I think it would be a grave mistake and I'm pretty confident that the WMF isn't going to take this responsibility over. The events of the last year suggest however that most people want us to be more active, not less. That the first act of the new committee has been to act against harassment should be applauded. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• And, speaking just for myself, it is; thank you, everyone involved in this case. It is great to see ArbCom stepping up more on these issues. Ironholds (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• In parallel with my clarification above in the Soap discussion: this matter was raised during the transition period and acted on by the 2016 committee. It does have a certain symbolism, but the happenstance of timing shouldn't be overinterpreted as if we were seeking out a ban, or looking to make an example, as our first act. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'll endorse what Opabinia said. The 2015 committee was a vote away from a ban when the year rolled over. That it was this committee's first action instead of last year's last action should not be seen as having any special meaning, it could easily have been over with yesterday and almost was. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed this user's +tools (Pending Changes reviewer and Rollback). Thanks, Nakon 07:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is not whether off-wiki harassment ought to be considered or not, the question is whether ArbCom has jurisdiction, whether ArbCom is competent enough, whether ArbCom is the best venue for this and whether there was due process. My own likely answer to all of these are no, no, no and no. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Re #1, you may wish to review the relevant policy, WP:OWH. ArbCom, and admins for that matter, can act on off wiki harassment. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Though I'd hope it is clearly obvious that average admins do not have access to tools or other sensitive private info that would allow them to act properly onwiki to actions offwiki (verification that an editor is using a specific offwiki account for example, even if account names appear to match since spoofing on social media is trivially easy.) The appropriate access to these tools is highly limited to start due to potential for abuse and should only be to those vetted, and of which I don't necessarily think being on Arbcom (a public vote, compared to a Request for Adminship) grants. --MASEM (t) 12:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

To add, while ArbCom members may not be the persons in the position to connect a onwiki editor to an offsite account, once that has been demonstrated from those in that position and evidence given to ArbCom, ArbCom members should be the ones to determine what offense was done and what action to take. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• For some reason I assumed Arbcom only dealt with On-wiki stuff only.., Personally I don't think Arbcom should deal with Off-wiki stuff at all, I myself have never been harassed but surely if you were you'd contact the Police or something ?, Maybe Arbcom should be "the next superheroes" and look something like this . –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You can only call the police if you can prove the identity of the harasser and the harassment has reached a level where the police are willing to get involved. And of course the Lightbreather case last year tangentially involved off-wiki harassment which took place during the case. The committee was never certain of the identity of the harasser and for that reason didn't act. It did act during the case where the identity of a different harasser was confirmed. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, speaking as someone who has been harassed off-wiki I totally agree ArbCom should have the capacity to factor in off-wiki behaviour in whether someone is allowed to edit, and I'm pretty tired of hearing "just go to the police" from people who have never been subject to harassment and so don't know what the experience is like.
  • If someone is harassing users in other venues, that has implications for the smooth running of the project and whether people can edit, and will invariably spill over into the project itself. I would argue that it'd be irresponsible for ArbCom to not be willing to deal with it: it's going to inevitably become their problem in a more clearcut way so why not try to solve for it at the earliest opportunity? And aside from the practical implications for community disquiet and arbcom workload, it just plain sucks to be wandering around Wikipedia trying to contribute knowing that the community contains people who spend their spare time trying to undermine, harass and insult you. It doesn't make you want to contribute to that community. It makes you want to leave. And hearing "oh, our hands are tired, this is out of our jurisdiction, maybe you should wait until they harass you here?" - hearing that nobody cares enough to do anything about it - makes that worse. ArbCom has a duty to look after the project. That includes avoiding situations that makes good people want to leave and never come back. And that includes dealing with harassment, much of which happens off-wiki precisely because it's historically been treated differently and not subject to sanction.
  • Going to the police is a nice idea in theory but in practice doesn't work; police are normally very ill-informed about internet-related issues, very unwilling to deal with them, and the actual law varies dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Most of it comes from the era where harassment was heavy breathing down the telephone; it's not designed for the internet. And even if you end up in the perfect scenario where police are well-informed or willing to listen, happy to work on the problem, and backed up by robust laws designed some time in the last 15 years, that's of precisely 0 help unless the person who is harassing you - and their ISP - live in the same legal system as you. It simply doesn't work for these kinds of issues a lot of the time. And what "arbcom shouldn't handle it, just go to the police" means in practice is that nobody handles it. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, very few Wikipedia editors have the wealth or influence to get the police to take them seriously even if they have a strong case and the law is on their side. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Firstly Davey2010. Remove that pic from this thread, those 2 arbcom members did not consent to their image being used like this and secondly, I would not be calling them "super-heroes", their motto regardless of the comic they belong to will always be to "Stand for Justice" ..don't think this arbcom knows what that is.....also I'm reminded of a famous line from one of those comics-2-movies...."You can either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain"..I'm sure this applies to most (if not all those) long standing wikipedians that were banned by the arbcom or administrators unjustly (according to them)..--Stemoc 03:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So, to summarize:

• Based on properly verified off-wiki evidence, arbcom sanctions an editor per its responsibility as clearly laid out in policy.
• It then announces such sanctions with no explanation.
• It includes in such announcements the statement: Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Devil's Advocate banned
• Arbitrators then get all cranky when editors attempt to discuss the sanction.
• Have I missed anything?

Per Prodego, simply say: For <serious, repeated, etc> off-wiki harassment of <group> on <media> Y is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. Add The committee regrets that, due to Foundation privacy policy, it is unable to provide any further explanation. Skip the "Discuss links" and the WP:AN notification.NE Ent 17:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. Moreover, a simple rubric would have three beneficial effects. First, it would help refute the beliefs, common in some circles, that ArbCom only bans users who harass Important People like Arbitrators, or that ArbCom’s "harassment" bans all concern WP:OUTING and that anything goes as long as you don't violate the cardinal rule of the club. Second, it would help editors close to the issue to distinguish regrettable actions from those that are bizarre or inexplicable. If A.B. Clump, baseball manager, is thrown out of a ballgame for "using a particular word that umpires always frown upon," well, it's too bad but you know how A. B. gets sometimes. If he is thrown out of the ballgame for attacking pigeons, well, maybe it'd be a good idea to give him a holler and find out what on earth is going on here. Finally, decisions should also instruct the community, so that it can learn what is and what is not acceptable. A general description of what lies beyond the pale could help people anticipate what is and what is not acceptable. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm willing to explore changing the ways we do announcements, but I fail to see how Prodego's suggested statement would satisfy complaints that we can't release private information. And because we can't release that information, we can't include that part about "of <group> on <media>". Gamaliel (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If <group> is public and <media> is public, naming them does not release "private information" and nothing in the TOS or policy prevents it. So, are <group> and <media> public or private? If this discussion is to proceed fruitfully that should be the first question answered. L. Villeneuve (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The victims of harassment in both of these cases were not public. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

We're all ultimately "not public" by some definition - the question is whether <group> in this instance public or private? "Bob Smith" is private, twitter handle "BeyonceFan99" is public. It seems unreasonable even the medium of communication here is treated as private information: e.g. email, twitter. If you're suggesting policy prevents the release of any further details please identify which policy. L. Villeneuve (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the difference between:

"Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned for off-wiki harassment."

And:

"For repeated smack-talk and hate speech against an editor non-admin on Team Fortress 2, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia."

Or:

"For threatening sexual harassment against an female editor by email, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia."

It doesn't violate anybody's privacy, and it would give a clear reason for the ban. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Edited. 21:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

We will not reveal any details about the victims of harassment, including gender and administrative status or lack thereof. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The decision is not yours to make. In time, you will be made to obey the will of the community. 50.45.233.119 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is indeed the will of the community that the Committee that it reveal details about the victims of harassment, then you could easily start an RFC to demonstrate this and amend the relevant policies. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal, why does gender or administrative status of the recipient matter when it comes to harassment? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said it did. It was just a generic descriptor I pulled out of my ass, which could easily just be left as simple as "editor". I've slightly modified my examples. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that Reaper Eternal, I think that it is clear that we (ArbCom) need to work on the way we make such announcements. There is certainly a balancing act between what we are permitted to reveal per the privacy policy, what we should reveal to protect recipients of harassment, and what the community at large wants (and deserves) to be told about such matters. As Gamaliel said above, he's willing to review how we make such announcements, I am as well, and I am sure are other committee members. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So leave out "<group> on <media>" and just do the rest of what I've suggested. NE Ent 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we know what TDA said for his defense? 67.44.192.161 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No, private statements made to the Committee will remain private. TDA is free to release whatever details about what he said to the Committee he wishes in whatever off-wiki forum he wishes. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As a banned user, he might still be able to edit his talk page, so perhaps he could post his side of the story there. In that case, it wouldn't be a matter of keeping private statements private, so would the ArbCom object to that? Everyking (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• As a general principle, I've avoided commenting on ArbCom stuff. I only noticed this because 1) I still have TDA's page watchlisted, and 2) It's New Year's Day so I'm not at work, and actually popped into Wikipedia as I still do from time to time. I have no personal knowledge of any of the specifics, other than my observation that TDA could be quite disagreeable when we disagreed as editors--but I was never harassed or observed any conduct that would warrant this sort of sanction. Having said that, I was thinking about what I could say that would give context to the sorts of things that come privately before ArbCom, and I came to the stunning realization that even though I served between 4 and 6 years ago, there are still things that I know about that I cannot make public, because the severity of the allegations would still harm identifiable living people. For those of you who think the opacity of ArbCom is improper in this case, I challenge you to find any former member who agrees with you. Ethically, transparency takes a back seat to not harming living people when it must. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to banning people for off-wiki harassment. I do, however, object to banning people for off-wiki harassment without presentation of evidence, without even so much as a specific claim of wrongdoing. Secret trials based on secret evidence (and/or "disappearing" people), without even giving the accused an opportunity to defend themselves, have acquired a rather bad reputation in the real world, so much so that you can hardly ever find someone willing to defend such things. I have never seen anyone offer a coherent explanation of why it is acceptable to treat people this way on Wikipedia; invariably they fall into the "this is not a justice system" argument, in which case they implicitly admit that they accept injustices. Everyking (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@ArbCom: Maybe I'm the only one on Wikipedia, and maybe I'm just sucking up, but I, personally, have no problem with either your actions or your announcement. We elected you to do this stuff, and to protect the encyclopedia so the rest of us can continue to edit it, and I, for one (maybe the only one), appreciate that you are beating the bounds and taking action when necessary. BMK (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really trying to be provocative, but secrecy always breeds suspicion. I have no solution to the issue. But BMK, your comment reads like a version of First they came.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanRiley (talk • contribs) 22:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You are most definitely not the only one, @Beyond My Ken:, most editors feel the same way. It's just the same people who make the most noise doing what they always do. Try to subvert and make innuendos of improper actions where they can. The voters spoke loudly in the most recent election. Some don't like the results, most do. Keep up the good work. Dave Dial (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Dave Dial (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Everyking: The thing about harassment, though, is that it often involves publishing or harping on embarrassing or overly-personal facts/claims/rumours about the victim. Forcing Arbcom to publish evidence of that type of harassment onwiki means that in the course of "protecting" harassment victims, we have to harass them even more publicly with information that has been published specifically to hurt/threaten them. So for instance (from here on I'm going to use an example that is half-made up and half- a composite of things that have happened to me in the past. It's not something I'm saying either of the "harassment-banned" users we're discussing on this page did. I encourage people to read it anyway, to get a sense of the seriously private/damaging types of evidence that Arbcom might have to publicly present in harassment-ban cases if they were required to do so).

A fictional case of harassment, to provide an example

Say someone is angry I blocked them. They think I'm just awful and that I need to be punished. So while they're waiting for that block time to expire, they spend their time building a "Wikipedia user Fluffernutter" article on, say, RationalWiki. In that page, they list my name, my address, and my phone number; they describe my children and the local school they attend, using information they pulled out of Facebook's privacy holes; they write sections alleging that I'm sleeping with everyone from the janitor to Jimbo; then for good measure, they throw in a paragraph about how since I work for [employer], I must be a corporate espionage agent sent by [employer] to use my administrative powers on Wikipedia to benefit them. Then they go to reddit, slashdot, etc and advertise their new RationalWiki page there, using an account that can be clearly linked to their Wikipedia one. Now say that when I become aware of that page, I'm both alarmed and frightened (as many women on the internet would be, upon discovering their family's personal info published). I email Arbcom a link to the page, saying "This person is blocked from Wikipedia, but they are running around social media publishing these things about me, and their block is going to expire in three days and I don't know what to do to make this stop." Arbcom reviews the evidence and decides that yes, this person's campaign of harassment has crossed the lined, and they are not welcome on Wikipedia as long as they're doing things like this. They ban the user.

Ok, so Arbcom has banned my hypothetical harasser. How are they to describe the reason for their ban when it is announced on the Arbcom Noticeboard?

• They could say "For posting personal information about user:Fluffernutter on RationalWiki, user:Whoever is banned." But now everyone knows where to look to find my personal details, and probably a number of the people who read that announcement, just out of innocent curiosity, have gone to RW and searched "Fluffernutter".
• Ok, how about "For harassment of user:Fluffernutter, user:Whoever is banned"? Well, now onlookers are going to be digging into any and all history Whoever and I share, attempting to find and evaluating evidence on-wiki or across the internet that involves Whoever and me, and which may or may not have anything to do with the actual reason Whoever was banned.
• How about "For harassment conducted on RationalWiki, user:Whoever is banned"? If Whoever's wp username can be linked to their RW one (and presumably it can be in some way, since Arbcom found it the two accounts to be linkable enough to base sanctions on), then curious readers will shortly be off to Whoever's RW account, where they will find that their main contributions involve writing about my address and purported sexual history.
• So ok, Arbcom is going to be cautious and not provide any detail that could lead to people coming after me, the victim. They announce that "User:Whoever is banned based on private evidence." All hell breaks loose on the noticeboard, because Arbcom can't just ban people and not provide an explanation!
• So they retrench and add "...banned based on evidence of harassment," thinking they've hit a happy - or at least, least-bad - medium. But now they've got people yelling at them for not providing enough explanation and people yelling at them for libeling user:Whoever by mentioning the word "harassment" in connection with them.

There's literally no way, at least that I can think of, that Arbcom could announce/describe a ban for off-wiki harassment that isn't going to suffer from either over-detail (likely resulting in the re-victimization of the harassment victim) or under-detail (causing outcry about secret decisions and un-reviewable evidence).

My personal feeling, as someone who has been harassed in the past and thus may be biased about this, is that the proper way for Arbcom to err in a situation like that is by providing fewer public details, so as to protect the victim who has already suffered ban-worthy amounts of harassment. If onlookers - or the target of the ban - find the situation questionable enough when the less-detailed announcement is published, they can ask Jimbo, or Arbcom themselves, to review the propriety of the decision. They could get input from the Ombudsman Commission if the Checkuser tool was involved, or from the Meta community if there's evidence (beyond "they won't publicly post what user:Whoever said about Fluffernutter") that Arbcom and Jimbo are colluding to obstruct natural justice on enwp. They could go all the way up to the WMF if they feel Arbcom's decision is breaking the ToU in some serious way (paid COI, discrimination, whatever). There is an entire series of appeal/review bodies to whom Arbcom would presumably provide the evidence on which they based their decision, if the decision is challenged to that body. Tl;dr: "We cannot show you the evidence publicly, because of concerns about re-victimizing the victim" isn't, and shouldn't be assumed to be, the same as "there is no evidence" or "we will not allow bodies who are qualified to handle personally identifiable information to review our work if it is called into question." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"For off wiki harassment, editor User:who is banned is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. The committee regrets that, due to Foundation privacy policy, it is unable to provide any further explanation." NE Ent 23:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That would imply the Committee wanted to disclose information on-wiki which would cause harassment to the victim, and does not do so only because of an external diktat. BethNaught (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

How about:

"For publishing the private information concerning another editor on a non-wikimedia website, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia."

That (1) doesn't name the victim (Fluffernutter), (2) doesn't say where to find the information (RationalWiki), and (3) states the reason for the hypothetical ban. In fact, that type of description is very close the public crime reports my college emails to all of us students. For example:

"Last night, a <description of perpetrator> assaulted a student and took property. Cincinnati police have arrested the individual."

Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That could work in at least some cases, and is as good a suggestion as I've seen for how to improve the announcements. My concerns with that style would be a) in cases where even saying that much would make it the victim/venue obvious ("We know user:Whoever is big on RationalWiki, let's go see what he's edited there lately"/"Well, user:Whoever has been fighting with user:OtherGuy lately, so clearly OtherGuy was the victim and reported Whoever"), and b) in cases where there's no single, simple description - though many cases can be easily understood as harassment within a few-words description, not all harassment can be easily summed up that way (to make a simple one up, "for repeatedly emailing an administrator" would bring about more questions than it answers; or imagine how you'd try to describe really weird, long, or involved situations without giving either too little or too much information). And I would worry that if Arbcom began a precedent of giving that type of semi-explanation, it would draw more attention to whatever happened in cases where they still can't/won't give that type of explanation. I'd be interested in hearing some arbs' takes on whether this type of announcement could work, though; it's definitely worth considering. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal and Fluffernutter: My first reaction to this idea is that "<description of perpetrator>" in real life is often not as neutral or anonymized as the description-writers believe, particularly if the perpetrator is a minority. This has been an occasional news item recently in the US, e.g. among college campus police departments (Example). That's not an exact parallel, obviously, but the fact is that you can't un-publish such descriptions and it may be difficult to know in advance what is "too much". In Reaper's example, just saying that private information was posted by User:Whoever is at least enough to say "hey, there's good dirt out there somewhere!" and everyone will look in all the usual places you might find Wikipedia-related dirt.

I'm certainly sympathetic to the problem, having spent all last week sitting on my hands not posting an argument conceptually identical to Reaper's about the WMF Board thing. But I don't see a lot of good solutions. Some of the wording changes that have been proposed in this thread and the one above have potential, and we can certainly look into changing how we announce these things if the community finds it useful. But to be honest, my personal prediction is that such changes won't make much difference. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is latching onto irrelevant minutia. My example isn't an end-all be-all perfect solution—it's an example. ArbCom will obviously not provide a physical description of the user, since all we care about is the username of the banned individual, not their gender, skin color, clothing, and anything else that could be used to help identify and arrest a perpetrator. I would be much happier if people would focus more on the salient point and not on the irrelevant details. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The salient point is that these sorts of seemingly neutral and anonymized descriptions are actually rather difficult to write, and that getting it wrong can have unforeseen negative consequences. I haven't thought of one yet for Fluffernutter's example case that wouldn't leave a breadcrumb trail to the hypothetical private information. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't want to perpetuate harassment, but I see little reason to think that merely providing an explanation for a ban would perpetuate harassment. On the contrary, it seems to me that a reasonably explained ban sends a strong message against harassment, while an unexplained ban just creates uncertainty and resentment. An explanation can be given without disclosing anyone's personal information, and if people were really that interested they would surely find it regardless. We cannot possibly say we have fair process if we won't even explain our decisions and give accused users a chance to defend themselves. Everyking (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

But my point is that I'm asking what form this "explanation for the ban" in a harassment case could take (beyond "banned for off-wiki harassment", which is what they have been doing) that would not involve information that would potentially perpetuate the harassment? "Harassment on [Twitter|IRC|Facebook|venue]" won't work, because you'd be telling people where to look to find "the dirt." "[Doxxing|sexual harassment|harassing phone calls|method]" won't work, because that increases the chances that Arbcom, a non-legal body, is making a legally actionable statement about a user, and they'd presumably like to remain un-sued. "Harassment against [this person|that person|the other person]" won't work because you're outing the victim and directing attention at them. "Harassment, proven by [chat logs|social media screenshots|phone records|other physical evidence]" could work, in some cases, possibly, but I don't really think knowing that the evidence came on a paper printout vs. via screenshot vs. whatever will actually resolve the concerns people are expressing here about harassment evidence being improperly interpreted. Similarly, "...banned for harassment, and we can't say more because privacy policy", as suggested by NE Ent above, is neither entirely accurate (I doubt it's the privacy policy that holds them back so much as it is a simple sense of "we're not going to direct more attention at someone who's already suffering from having inappropriate attention on them") nor any more informative for the purposes of allowing the community review the decision Arbcom made. The only thing that would resolve complaints about secret, unreviewable evidence would be an actual description of the specific, harassing things the person said, or actually publishing the log/screenshot/what-have-you, at which point we're back to square one as far as perpetuating the harassment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No, "banned for off-wiki harassment", is not what they are doing: the announcement makes no mention of "off-wiki." And I said "off wiki harassment, "not off wiki harassment." Furthermore, the implication that saying you're following website owner's terms of service means you would take a different action is if it wasn't the owner's terms of service doesn't follow logically. Personally, I follow the terms of service because that's how a I roll -- I don't even bother thinking about what I would do if they weren't the terms of service because it's a moot point. NE Ent 02:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the more likely reason this is secret is because our new social justice Arbs are calling something harassment which normal people would not consider harassment. How many more wrongthink bans shall we expect? I'm disgusted that some of these power hungry bullies were "voted" in. 70.56.27.239 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably you were one of those voters using your regular account, as opposed to the IPs you're now using while logged out -- or perhaps your account(s) are indef blocked or banned? BMK (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps some arbs were "elected" because the extreme SJWs wikipedia was too stupid to throw out had finally collected enough sockpuppet accounts to ensure some people would be arbitrators who neither had the intellect or temperament for it. It is fun to "speculate." 70.56.27.239 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Whine, whine, whine. If you don't have an account, then you had no say in who was elected. If you do have an account, log in so we know who's being a big baby. clpo13_(talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, pointing out this is a corrupt system is "whining." I'm just laughing as this entire project is being destroyed and nobody is smart enough to stop it. "Secret evidence" my ass. I know what the so-called evidence is. It isn't hard to find and it certainly isn't anything to be banned over. 70.56.27.239 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Provide citation and get banned. I'm well aware of how your ilk work. 70.56.27.239 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So a host of Arbitrators known to and elected by the community working within community-created structures and policies say there is secret evidence of private harassment, and the community should discount that in favor of vague claims of unknown public evidence by an IP editor who refuses to substantiate their claims. Sure, that seems reasonable. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

An individual continuing to engage in a pointless exchange should be wary of using the term "reasonable." (See also Wikipedia:The_Last_Word). NE Ent 22:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but it may be worth pointing out that the banning vote was unanimous, with the two abstainers being (ISTM) precisely those members most associated with the gender-gap issue (viz the so-called SJWs), so I don’t find the accusation at all credible. Moreover I would have expected rather different election results if there really had been a conspiracy to pack the committee with activists.—Odysseus1479 23:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Who are you playing coy for exactly? We both know any evidence presented would result in an immediate ban and revdel. Too bad we can't see who voted for who in the elections isn't it? Might be interesting to see the number of obvious anti-Gamergate sockpuppets that you protected who voted for you. On an unrelated note, how is PetertheFourth doing these days? I've been following him since his very first edits on the evidence page of the Gamergate arbitration case ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth&dir=prev&target=PeterTheFourth ) - just where someone would expect a new user to show up! lmao 70.56.27.239 (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It is rather ridiculous to criticize the anon for not providing evidence when the ArbCom has said that disclosing it would perpetuate harassment, so I think you owe the anon an apology, Gamaliel. Everyking (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I found the former ArbComm member's post earlier quite insightful. We elect ArbComm to do their job, so let them do it. Why do some editors feel the need to defend bad apples that make this less fun for the rest of us? Legacypac (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No one has been shown to be a bad apple. If you mean to apply that to The Devil's Advocate, I disagree. --doncram 23:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, this is punitive PERIOD. You cannot say otherwise, they user has not edited since october. This is 100% punitive and I would move towards lifting the ban and removing tools from anyone involved. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If you'll read through the (substantial) discussion above, you'll see that the block was related to harassment off-wiki. clpo13_(talk) 00:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, the user has not posted since october. It's impossible for it to be preventative. Anything off-wiki doesn't in any way hold ANY sway. You can't argue that it does. Oh and FFS I forgot to login. FlossumPossum out yo. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And that's being discussed above in length. Obviously, it's not clear-cut. clpo13_(talk) 00:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There's not much discussion to be had on the topic. It's pretty clear-cut. Actions against users are preventative, this is not preventative. This does nothing but make random arbcom member go 'OOOOooooOOoooo I got that bitch, GOTCHA BABY, HAHAHAHAHA'. There's nothing positive to be gained from banning someone who already doesn't edit Wikipedia. This is someone with an axe to grind, not a preventative measure. FlossumPossum (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you're making a big deal of this I hope you've checked the history and are aware one of the reasons TDA hasn't edit for nearly 3 months is because they were blocked and even lost talk page access. They would have been allowed back on the 5th January were it not for this new ban. This new ban makes it far more difficult for TDA to bring any of that harassment on wiki. I.E. Preventative. It also ensures that whoever was harassed doesn't have to deal with TDA who may have legitimately come back on the 5th were it not for the new ban (regardless of whether the harassment was brought here). I.E. Preventative although as someone pointed out below, both preventative and punitive are very similar in that scenario. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's safe to infer from the above posts by logged-out users that this matter was posted on r/WikiInAction or one of the other GamerGate haunts a bit earlier. To offer a bit of outside perspective on related issues, I'm a semi-regular editor at RationalWiki. Just within the past month, we have had to ban several users for engaging in off-site harassment related to GamerGate, including congregating on other websites to ferret out users' personal information and planning to make phone calls to people's neighbors alleging that <editor> was a supporter of pedophilia. This is particularly jarring if you know how lenient RationalWiki tends to be regarding banning. (To add additional context, people who identify with GamerGate have long complained about our article on the topic not being "fair" to them.) So it's not terribly unusual to have harassment involving the topic. But remember, it's really about ethics in video game journalism. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

How is this now about GamerGate? 67.44.193.226 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So now ArbCom has done a couple quick bans on the basis of harassment where we're just supposed to take their word. IRC and email harassment is particularly laughable. Oh, it's private, except that it's not and its a joke to pretend it's so. It's a fucking game and it's silly. We're supposed to pretend that all the backdoor conversations and collusion don't happen. We're supposed to pretend that you're our protectors of privacy. At what point are you going to realize nobody is going to buy that? At what point are you going to realize you're volunteers and throwing around legal terms like harassment with no disclosure is going to bite you very hard in the ass? Or do you expect that paragon of community support that is the WMF to have your back? Capeo (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the above turned into a Gamer Gate argument. I could give two fucks about that stuff. Aside from the fact where, and it isn't even if with that crew, that any and all discretions should be dealt with openly. Capeo (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• There is no way in which we are going to make public the details of harassment. That you'll have to take our word for it, that's the name of the game. If you had been harassed by a Wikipedia editor, in some vile way, would you want it publicized on some noticeboard? And what if it contained your real name, and the school your children attend? Your talk about "supposing to pretend" isn't very meaningful: you know we do things "in secret", though it's not really that secret--it's a somewhat select group of people, sure, but people like me were voted in by people like you, and you're not "supposed to pretend" we're protecting your privacy: we are, in fact, protecting people's privacy including sometimes, as a possibly unfortunate side effect, the privacy of the offender. You are more than welcome to run for the next ArbCom and maybe you'll feel like I did when I first saw some of the emails we get: it's something along the lines of "holy shit I'm glad not everyone has to read this", followed quickly by "what did I sign up for?" Drmies (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an on-going criminal trial in Canada whether continously disagreeing with someone on Twitter constitutes harassment: Guthrie vs. Elliott (National Post article). Yep. I hope the ArbCom is a bit more restrictive in their definition, and since they have taken the off-wiki duty they can deal with the hazards (tieing accounts/nicks together, context, trying to get a fair view instead of a one-sided private report). --Pudeo' 04:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting and worrying case. Capeo if the lawsuit passes we may have to rethink our harassment policy, but your comments seem to suggest we need to do that now, perhaps even avoid using the word. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, the issue is this, you're all a bunch of volunteers dealing with private info that ends up never staying private anyway due to the nature of WP and the internet in general. I would think it's best to refrain from terminology that has a direct legal corollary when you can simply say "conduct that is detrimental to the editing environment on WP" or other such wording. As a private website you don't even need to give an excuse but when you give one that has real world legal implications you're opening the door for trouble someday I'd think. Capeo (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a general comment: previous arbcoms got flak for not being proactive enough regarding harassment. This is a more proactive stance. I didn't vote on either of the above because I didn't have time to review the relevant evidence. On one hand we expect arbcom to ban individuals for non-illegal harassment (Although really really bad and immoral, I don't recall witnessing harassment which is currently illegal, although there is some movement to make more of this sort of behavior illegal. There is a difference between trying to disparage somebody online with the intent to make them unemployable, and simply being a massive jerk to someone without provocation. I've never seen the first, and I've seen infinitely more of the second than makes any sense. Now it's a tough call, how far can we, and should we go, especially in cases where the connection is unclear. (I do not think it was here). When arbcom knows, how aggressive should they be? How germane is IRC harassment? Email harassment? Harassment in person with a knife to a non wikipedian? None of this is straightforward, it's not codified, and arbcom is acting as best as it can. They are attempting to balance the interests of those harassed with punitive/preventative (largely the same thing...) actions taken against the perpetrators. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbcoms get flak. Period. This is a minimization problem -- criticism can only be minimized, not prevented. Per the above discussion, the best a committee can do is say "off-wiki," state clearly and firmly it is unable to discuss it on wiki, stop posting the stupid bureaucratic "discuss this" links, and then politely ignore the folks who want to discuss it on wiki. NE Ent 13:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As far how far a committee should go -- the most important thing must be the solidity of the evidence connecting the wiki account with the off-wiki behavior -- anyone can create "NE Ent" accounts on other forums, so the same name(s) obviously shouldn't be sufficient to sanction an editor. (This is a general observation; I have no knowledge of or reason to doubt the committee's actions on the specific cases currently being discussed.) NE Ent 13:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Let the Political purges commence. You don't need to know why a wrongthinker has been purged, asking for an explanation is akin to heresy. The party and "elected officials" know best. Move along citizen, there is nothing to see here. 79.247.123.26 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Help, now I'm being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

By your actions in this matter you show yourself to be an enemy of transparency and an obstacle to true democracy. We only protect free speech when we protect the speech which disturbs or disgusts us. This committee shows that it values silencing dissenters higher than adherence to principles of freedom and liberty for all. 50.45.233.119 23:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This just in: no free speech at privately-owned website. More at 11. clpo13_(talk) 23:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That is certainly the "standard retort" given by those supporting the prohibition of undesirable speech. Obviously the matter is more nuanced than that. Wikimedia frequently touts the benefits of free speech and liberal values in its press statements and fundraising drives as a part of the Wikipedia ethos. On a more general note, people who argue that the First Amendment has no bearing on non-governmental actors are technically correct (obviously), but they miss the point - the ideals embodied in the First Amendment's free speech clause are cherished by the people generally, and thus private businesses have always been influenced by these ideals. 50.45.233.119 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course the matter is more nuanced. You're upset that any speech is censored (by banning a user) but for a website to function in any way, it needs to have some limits on speech, which is why the "what about our free speech?!" argument doesn't work. It's not a black and white, "Murica the free" versus "literally Stalin" matter like you make it out to be. clpo13_(talk) 00:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Free information, such as Wikipedia tries to disperse, is conducive to free speech. The rest, all this Stalin stuff, is just hot air, or, to put it another way, hot air. Need proof? You're still not blocked! Drmies (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on Narcissa Wright are pretty indicative of where you stand, and they certainly indicate to which extent we should take you seriously. You weren't exercising free speech there--you were using harassing speech to push a POV, as your denial of someone's being transgendered indicates. Have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A rather thinly veiled threat. Juan Riley (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was endorsing free speech? Drmies (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I think it is quite shocking for a sitting arbitrator to trawl through the edit history of someone who disagreed with him in order to find ammunition to launch personal attacks. You may not understand the nature of free speech. When you say I was not "exercising free speech" when I said things you didn't like ... that's the whole point. I am also of the opinion that Gamaliel is in a questionable position. I note on his talk page he claims to have worked in a library. Any true librarian would understand the position of the ALA on censorship and banning certain viewpoints. You have a pleasant day as well :-) 50.45.233.119 03:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the American Library Association, of which I am a member, states that prohibiting harassment is perfectly compatible with their commitment to free expression. For example, see http://alamw14.ala.org/statement-of-appropriate-conduct. Do your homework before you trawl through the edit history of others in order to find ammunition to launch personal attacks. Gamaliel (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Trawling through? The edits in question still show up in the first page of your edit history, and are pretty much the only edits to the encyclopaedia proper and told us what you were doing in the edit summaries (which is a good thing, except the edits were very bad). Checking the contrib of problematic editors is perfectly reasonable, it's not that uncommon you'll find some junk that needs to be dealt with. If you don't want people to dismiss you because of you're appalling behaviour, don't behave so badly. Not that it was really necessary, your comments here were dumb enough to be unworthy of any real attention. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL. The ALA delineated what it considered harassment. The Lightbreather case where the head of a person was artistically rendered with Photoshop onto porn actresses would not be ALA harassment. Sorry, but just saying they are against harassment isn't anywhere close to what normal people consider harassment. The ALA is notoriously tolerant of activity they consider "expression" regardless of the impact it has on other people. The ALA's own statement seems to say that as long as you don't yell at them, it's okay (libraries are quiet so their specific prohibition on yelling is understandable). I guess that means if TDA didn't USE ALL CAPS IN HIS CORRESPONDENCE, he's just fine as far as ALA is concerned. --DHeyward (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, the link provided above says that "Sexual harassment or intimidation, including unwelcome sexual attention, stalking (physical or virtual), or unsolicited physical contact" are strictly prohibited. Photoshopping a person's head onto a naked model pretty clearly falls under this. But what does that have to do with this conversation? Mizike (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that a facetious remark from a present or near present arbcomm member will either be appreciated or suggest a promising future. Juan Riley (talk)

Yes, because all arbitrators must remain deadly serious at all times, especially in the face of such preposterous remarks. BethNaught (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Acontributor to an online encyclopaedia has been asked to find a new hobby. The IP (among others) equates this to systematic mass murder by one of the modern era's most violent and oppressive regimes. With respect, I agree with Drmies that it is hard to take the IP's view very seriously. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Juan, I have it on good but secret authority that my comment was in fact appreciated, and I thank you for your concern with my future. Seacrest out. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Banning someone for harassment is certainly not murder, but it isn't just "asking them to find a new hobby", either. The way we treat our contributors actually is important and we shouldn't trivialize it. Everyking (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new facetious overlords. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Gamaliel since as Mies said, your secret authority to continue to make fun of some of the users' concerns is appreciated, why don't you now wander about awarding further facetious awards such as Stalinist Cabal Barnstar's.Juan Riley (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

When I typed the above I had given up impatiently waiting for an "official" response to "Acontributor to an online encyclopaedia has been asked to find a new hobby. etc..." Apparently that is the answer. We should find new hobbies? Juan Riley (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that is an incorrect reading of the comment. There is widespread interest in the role of Wikipedia dispute resolution in responding to issues that relate to Wikipedia but occur off-site. However the debate will be better informed and more useful if people can refrain from ridiculous hyperbole, like equating one person's removal from an online encyclopedia with the slaughter of millions of people in death camps. You, JuanRiley, have not been asked to find another hobby. The Devil's Advocate has, at least for the next few months before they lodge an appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you...you have not after me yet. That is good to know. Juan Riley (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/04/wikipedia-can-now-ban-you-for-what-you-do-on-other-websites/ Prevalence (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Article is incorrect. This website has previously banned editors for activities done offsite since at least 2006....see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. The article fails to mention that TDA is also banned from Wikipediocracy as well.--MONGO 08:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I read on wikipediocracy that editors who contacted Kumioko's (Reguyla) employer, trying to get him fired, were not banned from wikipedia. Is that true, and does it imply that The Devil's Advocate did something worse? Prevalence (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You ought not believe everything you read on Wikipediocracy. No one was trying to get Kumioko fired, and no one actually contacted his employer, whatever Kumioko might say to the contrary. Either way that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not much relevant we can say about the topic at hand, is there? An editor is banned based on unknown accusations/evidence by an unknown accuser. No info given to prevent "re-victimization of the harassment victim". Oh please, if that was the main concern the logical choice would have been : no ban -> no announcement of the ban -> no discussion of the ban -> no speculation about the reasons for the ban. After all, a ban on WP doesn't prevent off-wiki actions, does it? Unless ArbCom has done some harassing of its own, they probably have enough info to do so. In that case the ban and the justification given makes perfect sense; it would also explain why ArbCom seems so confident that the banned user won't reveal the information either, given that keeping the info secret seems to be their main concern. Prevalence (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that one shouldn't take action against harassers because doing so draws attention to their harassment is a rather poor one, if you actually want the harassment to stop, and actively enables further harassment in the future. Whether or not a ban on Wikipedia causes the user to stop on other sites, the community, ArbCom, and the WMF have every right to decide to revoke someone's privilege of editing. As for ArbCom harassing TDA, you posit an unlikely though I suppose structurally sound theory, but the simpler solution is that there's no way TDA could contest the evidence presented—either clearly made by him on another site, or via email. The fact that he's been banned from the most obvious public forum for any sort of response also might have something to do with (as far as I know TDA has no declared or public social media accounts.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

As the Arbitration committee has broken it's remit it must be disbanded and all of it's decisions reviewed for breaking the rules of Wikipedia. 213.165.159.18 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Identify policy

In your announcements, link the policy or guideline you are applying, in fact it would be good to not just link the policy but call it by its full page name, if you do that you do not even have to link it. It will make it clearer for all. I would suggest generally in the form: For breach of Wikipedia:[Policy], . . ., or, . . . breached Wikipedia:[Policy] . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Something for us to think about, certainly. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. I've suggested that we do this from now on. Gamaliel (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan. I am all for as much openness as we can allow; in the cases where we just can't be open about something, we should be as clear as possible. I'm not sure it will suffice for the naysayers who, it seems, want all the details and the evidence. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but at least they will have no excuse to not know that you are making a finding on Wikipedia:Policy and not some concept, legal or otherwise, they associate with certain words. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I should not pull the curtain aside, but these are things that Certain Secret Cabals are discussing, in a made-up language no one can yet decipher, and I appreciate all good-faith comments that can help us make all this better. It will never be perfect because some people want to know everything, and that can't be, but I share your concern and that of many, many others. It's just...and I didn't really realize this before 1 January...it's not so easy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and good luck with your not-language classes, the gateway to the first of many great adventures that await you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)