Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Doncram amendment motion

Original announcement

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology closed

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration motions regarding extended confirmed protection

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Next:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Announcement regarding Gamaliel

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not exactly sudden, I posted about it on the 7th.[1] - remember, we had to post his evidence for him? He did ask for his user page to be blanked, so I'm not sure about a busy notice on it. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I, too, would like to offer my good wishes to Gamaliel. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
• Knowing people personally who've been harassed by the Gamergate freaktards (even SWATted by them), I'm not too suprised - wish you well though, hopefully this will calm down, the GG'ers will be gotten rid of, and society can regain some semblance of order. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)