Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Graham87 (talk | contribs) at 13:07, 23 March 2023 (Undid revision 1146212468 by Graham87 (talk), oops, I think these were supposed to go into the clerks archive ... will double-check). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

The saga of arbitration enforcement

How is it that an administrator can make a demonstrably poor block at WP:AE and disappear, forcing the 'defendant' to wade through an overly bureaucratic appeals process? (Dangerous Panda has not responded to an email sent by Lecen) Relevant links:

I hadn't looked at that thread since Sandstein suggested the block, and I'm not a fan of Lecen's attitude—I think he over-personalises things and needlessly inflames situations, which I suspect is how he ended up subject to an arbitration remedy in the first place—but having just had a look, I agree this was a poor block. The block came roughly 27 hours after Lecen removed the comment that was ostensibly the reason for it. Unfortunately, no other administrator can overturn the block without losing their bit. I recommend Lecen appeal to ArbCom if discussion with the blocking admin hasn't made any progress, though accusing DP of a "block and run" seems unfair, given that he did respond to you on Lecen's talk page and Lecen hasn't appealed on-wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice job, poisoning the well... "checkered history with blocking editors"? I'd say "fuck you, that's inappropriate", but I think that goes without saying ... and someone might suggest I was being uncivil. "Disappear"? When did I disappear? I stopped engaging The ed because of the ABF attacks and bullshit - doesn't mean I disappeared. The ed's done more harm than good in this situation - I'm in communication with Lecen, and I'm sure something could be worked out if The ed shuts the fuck up, or at least tones down the disgusting rhetoric the panda ₯’ 15:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Pardon the expression, DP, but that's bullshit and you know it. You blocked and ran away for ten hours, only coming back to Wikipedia and commenting after I posted here.[1][2] You also didn't respond to an email sent by Lecen almost immediately after the block for several hours, leaving him completely in the lurch.
You say ABF, I say you've made a terrible block.
@HJ Mitchell: Over-personalizing is an issue with Lecen, but he's also been closely watched and followed by several different editors over of several years. I'd probably be a bit irritable too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically, this is not the correct location, but since we are here... DangerousPanda can you post here when you've sorted things out with Lecen. Hopefully, given the circumstances pointed out here, that won't take too long. Best for everyone else to hold back on escalating things for now. Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Nothing, of course, has happened. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@The ed17: Are you privy to off-wiki communication between DangerousPanda and Lecen? If not, how do you know whether anything has happened or not? Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
[3] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The block log does not show whether DangerousPanda and Lecen are or are not communicating off-wiki about this. They both have lives outside Wikipedia, may be in different timezones (afaics Lecen has not made their real-world location public), and other reasons may mean that things are progressing slower than you would like - especially if one has asked the other questions they need to think about before responding to. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, please assume good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@DangerousPanda: I think you should unblock. As I've aid above, the comment that the block was supposed to be in response to was removed long before the block. I don't doubt our good faith and also as I said above, I think Ed's "block and run" allegation is unfair, but I think the block is, at best, unduly punitive (not a criticism of your personally: we've all made a few dodgy blocks at one time or another, and that certainly includes me) and all the more so the longer it stays in place. @Carcharoth: I think it might be time for ArbCom to step in here; if everybody sits on their hands until this misjudged block expires just because of the absurd bureaucracy surrounding AE blocks, then ArbCom has made mockery of its own system. @The ed17: I don't think your participation here is helping to resolve the situation. Perhaps you could take a step back now that you've started a discussion? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Arbcom is not required -- a consensus at AN or AE can overturn an enforcement block Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications NE Ent 01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Like my Thanksgiving turkey yesterday, I'm pleasantly being only slightly roasted here - (oh, The ed, remember: I retired a specific username due to privacy issues - repeating it twice here is conduct unbecoming an admin, and unnecessarily raised my anger - congratulations). As everyone CAN indeed tell by Lecen's own comments at their talkpage, not only have they and I been in extensive email contact, but they're also following the farce right here on this page. Indeed, not only are they following it, they've become emboldened by The ed's lack of good faith, incivility, and incredible ability to read my mind (last bit=sarcasm). One must remember that this is now MULTIPLE times than Lecen mas made frivilous filings against another editor. It should be clearly noted that at one point, Lecen did indeed likely have sufficient reason for concern - hence the original ArbCom response. However, in the months since, Lecen has gone beyond, and used that ArbCom decision as a blunt weapon, falsely crying foul numerous times. The community advised in previous situations that it would not accept such future filings. Their filings had become a form of harassment, and they knew that.
Now, on to my extensive communication with Lecen - the goal of which was indeed to see this block lifted so that everyone could go back to editing, and indeed editing without fear of harassment. In those emails, Lecen was simply asked to promise one thing: live by the IBAN indefinitely - take one specific editor completely off their radar; permanently. Lecen's responses including asking why I hadn't blocked 2 other people based on the AE report (huh? Those people weren't even parties to the AE report!). At no time during the email exchange did Lecen accept responsibility for their actions, and they refused to live by the IBAN. He then became insulting. Not long after that, he read my response to The ed above, and began futher insults. He then stated that he wished the block to remain in place. I gave him a day to reconsider his thinking, to no avail the panda ₯’ 09:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, what appears to have happened here is a good reason why a blocked editor appealing to the original blocking administrator sometimes makes things worse, and why there are systems in place to ensure that appeals can be made to someone other than the original blocking administrator. You engaging in e-mail conversation with Lecen and giving secondhand reporting of what he is saying doesn't really help - we have no way to verify any of this. If Lecen were to make a calm appeal to another adminstrator, or to ArbCom, maybe this could be resolved. Your statement that he was insulting to you could be taken into account, but I see poor conduct here on your part as well. You have not responded to the points made above that Lecen removed the text before the block was imposed. If the block expires before this can be resolved, ArbCom may have to take a closer look at what happened here on both sides. My personal view is that the whole case may need to be reopened, as this has kept coming back to AE too many times (as Sandstein noted at the AE report). One thing ArbCom could usefully do here is not only look at the conduct of those reported at AE, but also at whether the AE admins and others commenting at the AE reports helped or made things worse. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've been mentioned here: I agree that the block was no longer necessary at the time it was made because Lecen had already removed the comments that were the reason for my suggesting the block. However, the established appeals procedures must be followed in order to review this block, and I think that it is disruptive to start confrontational discussions about the block outside these procedures. Because an appeal may only be made by the blocked user themselves, and Lecen has apparently declined to do so, there is in my view no need for anybody to do or discuss anything related to this block. As to the merits of the case, as I said at AE, the interaction ban does not seem to work well, but any further ArbCom action would require, in my view, an interested editor's request to the Committee.  Sandstein  06:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Sandstein is correct. I suggest anyone wanting to take this further open a formal WP:ARCA request. It is clear that Lecen, for whatever reason, chose to correspond with DP by e-mail, rather than initiate the formal appeals process (or did DP send the first e-mail?). One thing that any administrator informally corresponding with a blocked editor by e-mail must make clear is that they (the blocking administrator) are not the final point of appeal and that the blocked editor always has the right to initiate a formal appeal. In theory, DP's approach of trying to sort it by e-mail and setting out some conditions sounds right, but I think the potential for it to go wrong with no transparency about what happened (the situation we have ended up in) is not good. So a transparent on-wiki appeal on the user's talk page, transferred to the appropriate venue, is almost always better. Sandstein, as someone active at AE, can I ask if it is common for you, for instance, to correspond by e-mail with those you have blocked as an AE action? Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I occasionally receive e-mails related to admin actions, including AE actions, but to preserve my privacy and for transparency reasons, I prefer to reply to these e-mails on the user's talk page. I normally respond to any complaints about the admin action as an appeal against this action, and indicate whether and, if not, why I won't modify the admin action. If the complaints indicate that the sanctioned user is unclear about the appeals procedure, I also inform them about the further venues of appeal, but otherwise I consider that the templated information ({{uw-aeblock}}, {{AE sanction}}) they received on the occasion of the sanction provides all the information they need to make further appeals, should they desire to do so.  Sandstein  09:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Carcharoth: Looks like I was "damned if I do, damned if I don't", doesn't it? I was roasted by my colleague above for not responding to Lecen's email - I had not replied because I too prefer on-Wiki conversations. However, the other admin was apparently aware that Lecen had emailed me, so I was pressured into responding using that forum. In terms of supposed "poor behaviour" on my part, I'm going to disagree that I was "alone" on this block. There was general consensus that some form of action needed to be taken. I had suggested a month. Sandstein suggested a week. Nobody else commented - I even left the case open for a significant period of time, then acted on the discussion. It's someone else's ABF on this whole thing that escalated things, so please be cautious with those kinds of things the panda ₯’ 09:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Adding Let me also add something vital here: my understanding of the AE board is that it does, indeed, operate very differently from say ANI/AIV/AN3RR. Those boards are intended to deal with immediate situation. If you liken it to the police, it's like having a cop with a radar on the highway: you're stopping something in motion. If it's stale, we typically do not act on those boards. If someone phones the cops saying "hey, 3 hours ago, I saw a guy speeding", the police may drop by and chat, but no charges will be laid. From what I see, AE is very different - it's more like having photo radar, or red light cameras: if we see you've broken the policy, we'll mail you a ticket that's just as valid as if it was disbursed at the time of the incident. ANI, etc are instantaneous - you try and perform the preventative action ASAP to prevent it from going stale. AE can indeed take days to decide, and thus staleness is inherent. As well, it does look at all behavior related to the enforceable aspects, even if it's been "undone" by the original editor. Based on the above, and based on my understanding of the AE process, it doesn't matter that someone had removed their post, the post itself warranted action.
You may indeed correct me if I am wrong with this interpretation - although I monitor and comment at AE, it is extremely rare that I implement. I took action based on the precedents that I have seen and reviewed. If I'm wrong on these interpretations, let me know - but so far, what I'm seeing above is 180 degrees contrary to the precedents of the AE board. If I'm wrong, I will indeed reverse - but show me where I'm wrong, don't just make emotional accusations. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
My view at the moment is that things went wrong here at two points. Firstly when you enacted the block without a clear consensus. Lecen should at that point have followed the appeals process and filled in the template provided at the links. That would have effectively restarted the AE discusion and a different result might have occurred, and the actual underlying issues might have been resolved (you know, what the AE request was actually about - read the statements by Wee Curry Monster and others). The second failure point was when you and Lecen started trying to sort this by e-mail and you both clearly failed to communicate without things degenerating into an argument. At that point, you should have handed off the appeal and told Lecen to take it to the next level. Overall, things are such a mess now that it would be best taken straight to WP:ARCA to see if it can be untangled there. To those that brought it here (WT:AC), you should also have gone straight to WP:ARCA. Finally, what would probably solve a lot of this would be to ban those parties to this case that are under an interaction ban from even mentioning the arbitration case. You really don't need to be able to refer to an arbitration case to just get on with normal editing. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
First, let me apologize to DP—I got a bit hotheaded here, and using your former username was not a conscious attempt to disparage or anger you. Second, Carcharoth, it would be good to codify this somewhere. How am I supposed to know to go to ARCA? AE says that ARCA is to be used to "appeal Arbitration Committee decisions". Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:ARCA is mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Appeals. You are meant to first appeal to the blocking admin, then to AE or AN, and the final stage is WP:ARCA. You can skip stages, but once you reach WP:ARCA the decision is final. I think the place things broke down here was when Lecen appealed to the blocking admin (over a holiday weekend as well, I think) and things slowed down at that point. It would have been better here to skip that and go to AE or ARCA (maybe AN). It is a fault in the process, I think, that we can't cut through red tape and say "after a set time period, if you've not heard back from the blocking admin, go to the next stage". My estimation is that going through all the stages in the process would take longer than the length of the block, which is a bit silly when you think about it. A review of a block should be done before the block expires. My view is that this is the sort of block that has a fair chance of being lifted on appeal, and something has gone wrong with the process here. Mainly Lecen not knowing or being willing to file a proper appeal in the correct place, and the e-mail exchange between him and the blocking admin making things worse. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that page existed. It answers pretty much all of the questions I would have had... so why in the world is it not linked from the AE block template? Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Arbitration_enforcement_blocks, which is what the AE template directs blocked users to, mentions only two possibilities: the blocking administrator or BASC. Moreover, it's hard to file an appeal at ARCA while blocked. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Check that, it's mentioned in the quote, but not in the specific instructions for requesting that a block be lifted. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@The ed17: I've updated Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks (and WP:Banning policy) to the current practice.
Though I just want to clarify something based on my experience as an AE regular (ping Sandstein for input), Carcharoth, AE doesn't work by consensus, it is one admin's opinion and action (the 'enforcing admin' who can be anyone) for which they receive input from others. WP:AC/DS makes no provision for consensus and saying that consensus is required sets a potentially dangerous precedent where some reports can't be dealt with quickly or with little input (eg this one). Blocks for example are generally handed out by individual admins without much if any input (eg this one).
@EatsShootsAndLeaves and DangerousPanda: you are correct to an extent. Notwithstanding what I said in the sentence preceding this one, if other admins have said that sanctions aren't necessary or have stated a preference for a lesser sanction, best practice is to go with what they've said. If you disagree you suggest an alternative and get input on it (eg me here) - that's the reason that it can take a while to do things at AE. I'd also say that the implication of the last paragraph in WP:AC/DS#Role of administrators suggests that you should be using an account with admin permissions whenever you are acting in arb enforcement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Well, based on that, it's exactly what I did: I suggested a month, Sandstein suggested a week, I blocked for a week. Discussion that the block was no longer germane didn't occur until post-block, and that was here on this page - nowhere else the panda ₯’ 09:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Callanecc, you're correct, AE does not work by consensus. Discretionary sanctions are imposed unilaterally, and there is no requirement to wait for or act on any consensus.  Sandstein  11:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course, that means that an administrator can place a patently poor block, claim it was necessary as a 'discretionary sanction', and force an editor to go through multiple hoops to be unblocked. That is poor practice which is just ripe for abuse, IMHO. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, but it works that way so that once an admin has sanctioned someone it can't be overturned without discussion. Think about how quickly some of our longer term users have their blocks (etc) overturned without any discussion and you can see why it's there. The disincentive to doing that is (1) it'll be overturned on appeal (which requires the same number of edits from the sanctioned user as appealing normally would, just maybe drawn out a bit and needing to use different templates) very quickly and (2) the proverbial stick is that the Committee reserves the right (as stated at WP:AC/DS to sanction the admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
To take this thread back a moment, consensus is not required at AE, in that any admin can act on their own initiative, and we often do in obvious cases, such as Callan's examples above. But establishing consensus is best practice in controversial cases. Sometimes it might be appropriate to act unilaterally if there is no consensus, but if consensus is against you, you just have to move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Callanecc, I'm not arguing that—it's in place for a very good reason. That said, I do think there's a place for officially mandating that admins come to a consensus, or at least a majority, as I can see the possibility of obstinate admins completely destroying AE. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that HJ! I can definitely see what you mean, however there are some users who will never have consensus against them as they have enough 'friends' who will argue loudly, but once there is a topic/interaction ban or block everything calms down again. As I said I can see where you're coming from however I've no doubt that is an admin was abusing the DS system (including at AE) and their sanctions where continually overturned or believed to be inappropriate the Committee would step in. To my knowledge that has never happened, and I doubt that it will as a "clear and substantial consensus" one of your sanctions will give most people pause, especially when the only people who can desysop you have made it clear that they will in these circumstances if you continue. In most cases the two examples above happen. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hence my proposal for a simple majority; if you don't have that, the block is probably too controversial for AE anyway. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Callan: I've never seen a situation where an editor's friends have been able to muddy the waters at AE sufficiently to avert sanctions, because decisions are made by uninvolved admins (who have to explicitly declare themselves as such by editing the relevant section, and can be sanctioned if they behave improperly). The closest I've seen is some of the threads about some of the longer-term participants in the Israel-Palestine area, where dozens of editors have participated and there has sometimes been lengthy discussion among admins, and I can remember one that ended in deadlock, but the discussion was always about the merits of the complaint and the editor's contributions, and never boiled down to personalities or friendships. Note that I'm talking in general terms—this isn't intended as a comment on DP/Lecen. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
...and you highlight well why the "majority" can and never should work on AE. The only concept at play is twofold: "did they break the Arb decision?" and "what is the action to be taken to prevent recidivism, based on the severity and past experience?". the panda ₯’ 20:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
True but the other thing to keep in mind is that AE isn't the only place violations of arb decisions can be discussed (or appealed), AN and ANI (where it's completely possible they may be discussed) have a much wider audience of both admins and non-admin users were it's more likely the waters can be muddied, including just by the different format for discussion used. But as we've both shown AE tends to work by majority or close to majority anyway due to 'best practice'. The other issue with legislating majority rules is the quorum and appeal problems, something imposed 1-0 or 2-0 is very different from something imposed 5-0.
Per the DS procedure the admin who imposed the sanction is able to remove or modify but none of the others can. So now any appeal or modification has to be discussed (by the same or higher majority?) and it's sounding very similar to other sanctions imposed by the community except by admins alone. I have sort of straw man'd it but the situation described above is one which is very likely to happen. The other issue is then who is responsible for the sanction per WP:AC/DS#Role of administrators, WP:AC/DS#Expectations of administrators, and WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications (as discussed above). Having it decided by majority sounds like a really easy change but it would mean rewriting the whole DS procedure. Plus admins would no longer be able to TBAN or block (based on DS) on their own initiative but rather would need to take it to AE, why not just take it to AN and ask the community to act...? Consider enforcing 1RR imposed through discretionary sanctions, (eg at Tony Abbott) rather than a quick block for 24 hours I have to report it at AE wait for someone to agree and then impose it way after the 1RR vio (and if they don't impose it it has to wait for me to get back online, maybe because they don't want to be responsible for it).
The whole basis of the DS system is that it allows admins to deal with issues as they come up rather than there being a need for the community to work it out. The reason for DS being imposed is because the community (including admins) were unable to deal with it. Enforcing a majority rules (even if the quorum is you + one other) means that all discretionary sanctions need to be taken to AE (etc) for discussion which slows down the process and ties up more time (generally another reason they were imposed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • AE can indeed take days to decide, and thus staleness is inherent. This is true, AE is less concerned with staleness than AN or other similar venues; however, this should not be interpreted too mechanically, in my opinion. If an editor does something thinking it was permissible and, when informed it wasn't, he self-reverts, then, again IMO, sanctioning him is inappropriate, because the editor in question made a good-faith error (i.e. he wasn't wilfully violating his restriction) and, when told, tried to fix his mistake; that's what is known as ravvedimento operoso (active repentance) in Italian. Now, if an editor makes a habit of violating his restriction and then saying "sorry, didn't know it wasn't allowed", then by all means block him because he's showing a serious lack of competence, but if it's only a one-off occurrence, then the best solution would be (always IMO), to let him off with a warning to be more careful. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, @Salvio giuliano:, based on this interpretation, I will be unblocking the panda ₯’ 09:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If this incident was a one off, Carcharoth's advice to "hold back on escalating" would be appropriate. Unfortunately, it's not, so I've drafted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves. NE Ent 16:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ban from mentioning the arbitration case

@Carcharoth: Finally, what would probably solve a lot of this would be to ban those parties to this case that are under an interaction ban from even mentioning the arbitration case. You really don't need to be able to refer to an arbitration case to just get on with normal editing. While that might work in this specific case, I don't think that it is something that should be adopted as a general point. There are legitimate reasons why a sanctioned editor may need to refer to an arbitration case in the context of normal editing, particularly advising another editor who does not appear to be aware of the sanction why they are unable to do something. For example if editor A is topic banned from weather and is asked by editor B to take a look at a newly-expanded article about a settlement in Belize because editor A has previously worked on several Good Articles about cities in Central America. It is reasonable for editor A to explain that they are not able to do any work to the Climate section of the article due to the topic ban imposed in the arbitration case. Similarly if editor A is under an interaction ban with editor C, they should be able to legitimately explain they are unable to partake in an RfC about a similar article because it is about content editor C added to the article and is defending in the RfC. (There are also shades of super injunctions, but I haven't thought through this fully though) Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:01, 9 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 18 November (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. Mike V • Talk 01:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP

Can someone remind me which case was amended by motion to have a remedy placing all BLPs ++ under discretionary sanctions? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

OK I got it. WP:NEWBLPBAN All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
It does beg the question, however, why should you have to ask? Given that this affects virtually every single editor on Wikipedia, why wasn't everyone notified prior to this decision? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The current enforcement log is at WP:BLPLOG. There was a special enforcement procedure known as WP:BLPSE, which was enacted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes in 2008. When it was first announced back in 2008 it was controversial. On May 3, 2014 it got replaced by the new system which allows standard discretionary sanctions for BLPs per WP:AC/DS. Lately I think there has been an uptick in use. Judging from WP:BLPLOG, the BLP discretionary sanctions have been used 11 times so far in 2014. Anyone can alert someone to the BLP discretionary sanctions by using {{subst:alert|blp}} as explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. I only found out about this a few days ago, one of many "just when you think it can't get any worse" moments. The motion was passed ex post facto on a case about footnotes! Being a motion community input was zero. The effect is a policy change. Arbcom does not make policy. Hence my research for an Arbcom election question. Since no-one is standing (except Technical 13) that is rather moot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Should we be seeking a super majority for site bans and desysops?

Looking over a case, I see as an example of what constitutes a majority as (for example) "For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority". That is only a 58.33 percentage majority if its a simple 7-5 straight up vote. The standard to sysop is usually above 70 percentage points and to promote to crat even higher. My point is, if we're going to desysop then shouldn't the committee be expected to also achieve a 70 percentage points super majority? Taking away someone's tools or site banning them is a BIG DEAL. I know I am missing something here, but why are we not seeking a super majority of at least 65 percentage points before we desysop or site ban?--MONGO 04:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Tony (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think that removing the tools should be easier than getting them. That way administrators would think twice before going havok with the delicate permissions they hold. Asking for a 70-percent majority between arbs to go through with a desysop will only make dealing with admin misbehaviour even more difficult than what it already is. We don't want that, do we? Now, I could find myself agreeing with you with regards to site bans. I think that site-banning someone is certainly way a bigger deal than losing the tools; I'd rather see myself desysopped than banned. → Call me Hahc21 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes—Hahc's post is much better than my one-worder. Tony (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
7-5 is a simple majority and I feel that is too simple. I don't know what the average passing majority for desysops and site bans has historically been but I'd prefer an 8-4 (based on 12) for desysops and 9-3 for site bans.--MONGO 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Hahc. Also, the Arbitration Committee is a small group of people and so percentages are not a useful metric in comparison with the tens or hundreds of comments that an RFA may attract. All members of the ArbCom were elected with a majority of support from the community to be fair and impartial when reviewing the evidence. If your actions are such that, after a lengthy and detailed scrutiny of all the evidence presented. a majority of the arbcom feel that desysopping or a site banning is the best for the encyclopaedia then I see no reason to consider that insufficiently strong - especially as the vote is public and arbitrators can and do discuss their reasoning and explain why they feel someone should or should not be desysopped or banned. This is not ANI where any random admin can weigh in with or without reading the evidence (not that any should do the latter of course). Thryduulf (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
A 7-5 "vote" in favor of a site ban should never be a sufficient majority to implement such a severe penalty.--MONGO 14:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
If a simple majority is needed to elect the President of the United States, I don't see why not. → Call me Hahc21 15:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For that person, it's (only) be president or not. For a user considered to be banned, it's about not being part of the project for quite a length of time, most of the time under a different committee. - I suggest not to ban anybody now, before the elections. - If banning seems needed (which I doubt, I am famous for singing the praises of the banned), leave it to the next committee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As a member of WP:RETENTION, I'd support a change to 2/3 majority. Though, such a change would likely make editors less concerned about the potential of facing Arbcom & that might not be a good thing. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a valid point and my suggestion here isn't intended to make things more difficult for the arbitrators....in fact, I have yet to research if there are any instances of site bans and or desysoppings which are implemented without a super majority vote. The allegory about the percentage needed to become POTUS is a fair one but that didn't apply in 2000. Let's look at it this way...if arbcom is required to present a 8-4 vote for desysoping and 9-3 vote for site bans then it protects them more from fallout since there will be less ambiguity.--MONGO 17:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Not to get off track, but a simple majority of the electoral college vote, is all that's required to elect the US President & US Vice President ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The comparison to the U.S. elections fails, and curiously so. In the U.S., you need a simple majority of the electoral college to become president, and need a 2/3rds supermajority to be removed from office. We have the inverse of that here. You need a supermajority to become an administrator, and a (of note: non-bicameral) simple majority to be removed from administrator status. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I can tell you what we're not going to do: change the rules in the middle of a case. We attempted a review of arbcom procedures earlier this year, itbasically died on the vine as it seemed very few users were actually interested in the subject. There may be a similar review next year, that would be a good time to advocate for rules changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    Calm down...was not even thinking about a mid-case alteration to policy or guidelines. Perhaps I am completely mistaken and if so that's fine, but thought that my idea may be beneficial to everyone.--MONGO 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The community will do as it damn well pleases. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

We're not going to limit the number of admin slots to 435 and force every admin to fight for the seat every two years ( United States House of Representatives ). Not a reasonable argument / analogy. NE Ent 21:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Pointer to an RfC

If anyone is interested: WP:VPR#RfC: Should ArbCom be broken up into smaller boards. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Interested users are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Interested users are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Communications and privacy wordsmithing

Re [4] Concur with specially -> specifically (was actually thinking about changing that myself). I had also originally removed the "Note" intro, but restored it because I think it reads better with it -- indicating a transition from specific content about how the committee handles things to a more general note about email in general. (The can / may wording is a tossup, and although traditional, possibly archaic, American usage would prefer "can" in that context - "can" meaning ability and "may" meaning permission.) NE Ent 15:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing back to "can". I generally don't like "note", even though I occasionally use it, because you wouldn't be saying something if you didn't want someone to note it. I understand that some might think it draws more attention to the comment than without it, but even if that is so, I don't think this particular addition needs extra attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree "Note" is often superfluous but I think it makes sense here to flag the transition. NE Ent 17:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you think of a different transition (although I'm not sure I agree that a transition is needed)?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Bbb23 that no transition is necessary. Regarding the following sentence, I suggest the following wording:
For further information about safeguarding your privacy, see "On privacy" and "How to not get outed on Wikipedia".
isaacl (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
"Note that", "remember that" and similar phrases are pap, and should be removed unless you want to finger-wave at readers. Tony (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to description of mail handling

This recent (competent) edit by Tryptofish prompted me to look at WP:FUNC. Since Elen of the Roads has been inactive on en.wiki for over a year, why is she still listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Because someone forgot to take her off the list when her advanced permissions were revoked back in April. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
That was simple, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It was actually slightly complicated. Turns out the list is generated by a rather sophisticated template with numerous sub-lists imbedded in it, but it's fixed now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This has got me thinking about something. In the near future I will not be an arb anymore. I have been a member of the oversight team since 2010. Will I be listed under "former arbitrators" or "advanced permission operators"? Do I have any say in the matter? etc?

I'm going to guess that @Roger Davies: can answer these questions. (he seems to always know all this stuff) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been several resignations in recent months; is the list onwiki up to date? Courcelles is in the same position (at this time, anyway) and was listed under former arbs. Usually those lists are maintained by some clerks (when an arb resigns from the Committee), a few arbs, or a few stewards. --Rschen7754 02:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (November 2014) Discretionary sanctions alerts

Vandenberg confirmed that a caution was intended and the alert template was removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
WP:AC/DS

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Sandstein

Today, John Vandenberg, an administrator, alerted me about the discretionary sanctions applying to the Eastern Europe topic area, and logged this as a "notification" on the case page, which he later changed to a "warning". Judging by an earlier comment, he did so to register his disapproval of my speedy deletion of an article created by a sock of a banned user. After I removed the alert after having read it, it was immediately reinstated by an anonymous user, 41.223.50.67.

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts the purpose of such alerts is to advise an editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. I am and have been active as an administrator by issuing discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and am therefore perfectly aware of the existence of these sanctions, as John Vandenberg confirmed he knew. The alert therefore served no procedure-based purpose. This also applies to the unneeded logging on the case page: Unlike earlier notifications, alerts are not logged on a case page because they can be searched for with an edit filter. John Vandenberg knew this because he used the correct alert template as provided for in WP:AC/DS.

It therefore appears that John Vandenberg used the alert procedure and the log entry not to actually inform me about discretionary sanctions, but that he misused the alerts procedure to mark his disapproval of a deletion I made and to deter me from making further admin actions in this area with which he disagrees. That is disruptive because this is not the purpose of alerts, and it is not how admins are expected to communicate with each other about disagreements concerning each other's actions. It is also disruptive because it has had the effect, whether intended or not, to create the incorrect impression in another administrator that I am disqualified from acting as an admin in this topic area because I received this alert.

To the extent the now-"warning" is meant as a sanction in and of itself, it is meritless and disruptive: The speedy deletion I made was compliant with WP:CSD#G5, and does not conflict with the prior AfD because the ban evasion issue was not considered there. Any concerns about this deletion should have been discussed at deletion review.

Per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts, "any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned". Nobody other than the Arbitration Committee is authorized to issue such sanctions. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify that alerts should not be used for any other than their intended purpose, and to take such actions (e.g., issuing a warning) as it deems appropriate to ensure that John Vandenberg will not continue to issue alerts disruptively. By way of appeal of discretionary sanctions, I also ask the Committee to remove the "warning" from the log as being without merit.

Prior to making this request, I discussed the issue with John Vandenberg, but we failed to reach an understanding, and he invited me to submit this matter to this forum for review.  Sandstein  16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand John Vandenberg's contention that I used admin tools while involved. I have never interacted with "Polandball" or related pages or users editorially, but only in an administrative capacity. Per WP:INVOLVED, such continued administrative activity does not speak to bias (even if others may not agree with the admin actions), but is instead merely part of an admin's job. John Vandenberg's casting of unfounded aspersions of misusing admin tools and of "battleground mentality" is also disruptive. As I said elsewhere, I did fail to take into consideration that my alerting the user who filed a DRV request concerning an AfD I closed might be perceived as an improperly adversarial action, even though an alert is not supposed to be one and I didn't oppose the restoration of the article proposed at DRV. I'll keep this in mind in a similar future situation. Nonetheless, because alerts may be issued by anyone, including involved users, the alert raises no question of involvement.

As concerns the "warning", either it is meant as a discretionary sanction for misconduct (as the warning by me he cites was) and in this case is appealed here as meritless and disruptive, or it is not and has therefore no place in a log under the new procedures.  Sandstein  18:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

John Vandenberg: Alerts are not admin actions because they neither require advanced permissions nor are they restricted to administrators. But neither are they editorial actions that speak to bias and would disqualify an admin that issues them, because they are intended to be neutral and informative in nature. Are you seriously contending that merely issuing an alert makes me involved and unable to act as an administrator, and on that basis you alerted and warned me? It should be obvious that this can't be the case, if only because by that logic your own warning would be inadmissible because it was preceded by your alert which would have disqualified you from acting further.

This episode indicates, to me, that this whole alerts system is unworkably cludgy and may need to be scrapped if even former arbitrators can't understand it, and that perhaps general clarification is needed that discretionary sanctions and alerts are, shall we we say, not the ideal way to respond to concerns about admin actions - such concerns are normally a matter for the Committee alone.  Sandstein  21:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

To my mind, Sandstein is obviously 'WP:INVOLVED' in the current DRV about Polandball, however not surprisingly he claims to be uninvolved. To quickly recap, he is the admin who deleted the article at DRV; when notified of the DRV, he decided to issue a DS alert to the person who initiated the DRV, and speedy delete another related article which had survived an AFD and was mentioned on the current DRV. When User:Nick undid the speedy deletion, Sandstein also demanded that Nick redelete it. IMO, this is fairly clear battleground mentality, only including the use of admin buttons for good measure. All quite unnecessary, as a sizable chunk of the community would participate in the DRV, so his voice there would be heard. It is very strange logic that Sandstein felt he had to alert user:Josve05a about discretionary sanctions, but objects to me feeling the same way about his own editing/admining in this topical area. He claims his alert to user:Josve05a was not an admin action (otherwise he would surely run afoul of 'WP:INVOLVED'), but then cant see he is participating as a normal contributor. Maybe he considers a DS alert to be a friendly chat, when he gives one to someone else ...

Anyway, the nature of this clarification is the use of alerts and the logging of them on case pages. Obviously some serious saber rattling would have quickly occurred had I sanctioned Sandstein, so I went with an alert only with a stern message with the hope he could see how others were viewing it. He didnt; he continued to post aggressively. When I found the right DS alert template and posted it, the edit filter notice reminded me to check if he had been notified any time in the last 12 months, and press Save again if I was sure it had not occurred. As I didnt find any prior notices (in edit filter log or on talk page archives), I proceeded to save the alert. I then went to the relevant arbcase to log it as is the usual procedure. I knew DS had been standardised earlier this year, and was pleasantly surprised by the edit filter logging, but it didnt occur to me that alerts would not be logged. The arbcase log for the EE case had all the signs of logging being part of the standard procedure.

Since Sandstein objected to the logging, I went and had a look at other cases and found quite a few examples of the log including notifications and warnings; I did offer to give Sandstein examples of such notices and warnings, but we are here now. Here are the ones that I've quickly found in arbcom case logs since April 2014.

If it is no longer appropriate to log alerts/notices/warnings on the arbcom case, an edit filter should be added to ensure admins are aware of this change. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein, when you put a notice on user talk:Josve05a, were you doing that as an admin or as a normal user? If it was the "editor Sandstein" who popped that friendly note on user talk:Josve05a, and not the "admin Sandstein", can't you see that you've become INVOLVED? John Vandenberg (chat) 18:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sandstein, so you issued a DS alert to user talk:Josve05a with your "editor Sandstein" hat on, and you want admins to be exempt from discretionary sanctions? Thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

I've nothing to add to the clarification and amendment section, but I will state, as I have repeatedly said, I'm really getting fed up watching good content be deleted and destroyed as a result of battleground mentality. It genuinely makes me sad watching material that people have put their heart and soul into, being deleted because it was written by this week's bogeyman. Nick (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise. The CSD-G5 criteria cannot be used on any page that has survived a deletion discussion (AfD). The CSD-G5 deletion by Sandstein was out of process. Please refer to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Pages_that_have_survived_deletion_discussions for further information. Regards, Nick (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

If the DS alert is going to be used without a sting it has to be used for everyone all the time. Its common for editors to know an article is under DS, but this isn't something one can assume. Of course, the use of the alert can been abused and can be seen as threatening. Use that is universal will over time render the warning as commonplace and standard, will de sting. Whether it was used in this instance as an implied threat, I don't know or care. Behind many of the actions I've seen against editors over the years are threats, some so complex as to be almost invisible. I know how that feels, so am not condoning anything that threatens but unless we deal with the surface level of an action and ignore assumption we will never get to supportive editing situations.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC))

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

One of the goals of the recent reforms which turned "warnings" to "alerts" was to remove the stigma of the warning/alert. Apparently, that stigma is alive and well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker

Giving a "warning" is an administrative function. Its only purpose is administration of the website. No, a User does not have to have privileges to do much of administration on Wikipedia. The idea is anathema to the community, which expects good users to administer, even to requiring such at RfAdmin, moreover, the website would not function, if users did not step up. So no, giving a warning does not mean one is INVOLVED. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Fut.Perf.

John Vandenberg's actions in this case are wrong on so many levels at once it's hard to know where to start. About his technical misunderstanding of the nature of alerts and the non-logging of "warnings", I think all has been said. More importantly, his warning was wrong on its merits. As for the speedying of Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? (the only issue he actually mentioned in the warning), Sandstein was processing a valid G5 speedy; the fact that there had been an earlier "keep" AfD is obviously irrelevant as long as the facts justifying the speedy weren't known and discussed during the AfD. As for Sandstein's actions in the Polandball issue, which seems to be what John Vandenberg is really more concerned about, the claim that he was showing an inadmissable battleground attitude is utter nonsense when you look at his actual, very measured and balanced, comments in that DRV. Finally, the "warning", whether logged or not, was also out of process. A "warning" under DS means that I, an administrator, will hand out a block or topic ban to you, the person I am warning, if you repeat the behaviour I am warning you over. Does John Vandenberg seriously believe he would be entitled to block Sandstein if he did a G5 speedy like this again in the future? That beggars belief. Even if John Vandenberg had legitimate reasons to be concerned over Sandstein's actions, then his recourse would be not to impose "sanctions" on him, but to ask Arbcom to review Sandstein's actions; that, however, is not in any way inside the scope of what the DS are about, and therefore also doesn't belong in the DS logs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Neotarf

This request is eerily similar to this one made some time ago, where four editors were given "civility warnings" by Sandstein, apparently at random. The result of the clarification request was a delinking of the four names in the ARBATC case page. If any action other than delinking is recommended for the current situation, it would only be reasonable to revisit the other situation as well. —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist

Perhaps AGK needs to take a step back and reconsider what it is that is being said rather than apparently typing rash replies. I am sure it would not be difficult to demonstrate how involved they have been in this "DS" rewrite project (on or off wiki), and maybe that is why he is naturally inclined to be defensive of it (even bordering what people term as ownership mentality - eg "I have spent hours editing this....").

I recall he previously said in relation to this topic (but on a separate matter) 'I will not have it said that any issue relating to DS has been rashly dismissed, particularly after an exhausting, year-long consultation. I'm sorry to have to point out that you are not coming in at the eleventh hour, but a year and a half late.' But the simple fact is, there is genuine concern or criticism regarding how convoluted and time-consuming the DS system is to the vast majority of users, and even if it is now two years later, I am sorry to say his replies below do seem to me to rashly dismiss those concerns ([5][6]) and are not consistent with what is expected here.

It is so patently obvious that a number of editors, administrators, and for that matter, former arbitrators and current arbitrators have in fact needed to take quite a bit of time to go through this 'system', and that it is by no means 'simple', 'easy to use', or 'working' by extension. Now that this reality is finally noted, I would suggest at least the rest of Committee rectifies the issue. It would be good if that happened. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I too would repeat this comment by A Quest For Knowledge. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Discretionary sanctions alerts: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • When I get back from a trip on Monday, I will wade into the technicalities here. For now, I will simply note that Russavia is surely laughing his ass off at the drama he is causing here without even trying. Let's all try not to give him more reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I spent the past half hour or so reading over the back-story to this request, and perhaps I am in the advanced stages of serving out my last term as an arbitrator, but I really wish I hadn't. Let's back up a step. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality encyclopedia, in an environment of collaboration and community among the contributors." The entire administrative apparatus, including "discretionary sanctions" and the arbitration process and the other WP: pages where some of us spend too much of our wikitime, is ancillary to the objectives of Wikipedia that brought us all here. Debating the rules of these administrative processes should not become, in intent or in effect, an end in itself. Put differently, if the bickering about the rule-sets governing administrative processes on Wikipedia has become more complicated than some of the real-world rule-sets that I interpret every day as a litigation attorney, something is wrong. The dispute, or set of disputes, crystalized in this request is so many levels removed from the purpose and objectives of Wikipedia that it is sad. Beyond that, I will leave sorting out the fine points here to my colleagues who were more active in the DS recodification project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
      • What? I do not think it fair to say that anyone in this request is requesting clarification with non-constructive motives. These editors have a legitimate need of a ruling here, and you cannot legitimately refuse to be understanding of that and still expect the project's administrators to do their job. AGK [•] 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an alarming failure here to grasp the distinction between the two relevant procedural entities. Cautions or warnings are sanctions and need logged; alerts (previously known as notices) are not sanctions and carry no implicit accusation of guilt. These two used to be more or less the same thing. In the recent update of procedures, they were split off and it is wrong to interchange them. John Vandenberg needs to decide whether he wanted to caution and sanction Sandstein (it appears he did) or alert him. If it is the former, he should issue Sandstein with a hand-written caution (and delete the alert template, which he may not use for that purpose). If it is the latter, Sandstein is already aware per point II of the relevant procedure and he must not attempt to 're-alert' him. I accept JV's claim that he was not aware of the changes in procedure, but I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes. If you do not, you can be sanctioned by the committee, and given that this process is hardly in its infancy you are likely to find the committee exercises this right.

    On the complaint of JV about Sandstein, my position is that it cannot be heard in this venue. With the procedural confusion clarified (not that there should have been any in the first place), I suggest JV take this complaint up, perhaps with a handful of other administrators, directly with Sandstein. Neither party appears to have made an adequate effort to resolve this together, despite, as administrators, being obliged to do so. Should those attempts prove futile, a proper case request should then be filed. AGK [•] 12:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I essentially agree with AGK. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree with AGK. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • As do I. WormTT(talk) 08:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • And I. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I do as well but it's frustrating the amount of time I had to spend, back several months ago, to get a solid grasp of how this system works. Brad makes a point: the system is quite complicated, and has become a bit of a self-contained beast. While I was able to pick it up, I'm afraid it would simply be incredibly daunting for any new user to navigate. NativeForeigner Talk 05:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • AGK summarises things well but makes one key mis-step. He asks that: "I would remind him and all administrators generally that, before engaging in this process, you must take five minutes to update yourself on these changes." The response by NativeForeigner and NYB show that the estimate of 'five minutes' to update oneself on these changes is a woeful underestimate. What is needed here is some feedback from newer admins on how easy it is to understand the system as it currently stands. It is also incredibly important that ordinary editors, especially those potentially facing sanctions, find the system easy to use. If the system fails that test, then it will be unfit for purpose. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Carcharoth: DS is easy to understand, because we put months of effort into writing polished, clear documentation for it. NYB and NF are not good test cases: while voting earlier this year, they had to get to grips with both the new system and the changes made from the old system. Current administrators merely need to read and follow WP:AC/DS.

    More to the point, the new system is working. Let us leave it at that. AGK [•] 06:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments (January 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Motion text

Establishment of a central log

A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure is to be established by the Arbitration clerks on a page designated for that purpose (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/Log/2015], [/Log/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by topic, then by month within each topic. An annual log sub-page shall be courtesy blanked once five years have elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.

Associated amendments to the discretionary sanctions procedure

1. Additional section to be added

The "Establishment of a central log" text above is to be added to the foot of procedure page, with a heading of "Motion <date>", with the date being the date of enactment.

2. The "Authorisation" section is amended with the following addition:

"Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard discretionary sanctions procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control."

3. The "Guidance for editors" section is amended with the following addition:

"The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion."

4. The "Alerts" subsection is amended with the following addition:

"An editor who has an unexpired alert in one area under discretionary sanctions may be sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic, which is also under discretionary sanctions, provided the nature or the content of the edits – broadly but reasonably construed – in the two topics are similar."

5. The "Logging" subsection is amended with the following replacements:

Replace: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for the purpose in the authorising motion or decision."
With: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the central log, currently /Log."
Replace: "The log location may not be changed without the consent of the committee."
With: "The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee."

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Overdue housekeeping/reform,  Roger Davies talk 09:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    Removed "calendar" per discussion in community section. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies talk 17:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. Agreed, will bring order into present situation. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  4. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  6. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  7. Courcelles 19:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 10:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators

One thing that has occurred to me regarding the five year rule, is that some sanctions, usually topic or interaction bans, are placed indefinitely. Is the intent of blanking the logs such that ALL DS placed this year would expire on 1 January 2021, or just the log be blanked but that any remaining sanctions remain in effect? Personally, I like the former, if an editor who is not indefinitely blocked is still around in five+ years, there is a good chance the sanction isn't useful anymore, and if by chance it is, it could be re-imposed. But one way or another, this question should be settled. Courcelles 18:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, "may be blanked" should be replaced with "shall be blanked", or "may be blanked at the Committee's discretion" (I prefer "shall"). The may language is too open-ended, it'll be blanked if someone (who?) feels like it? Courcelles 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Roger Davies:. My second point is uncontroversial enough that I've just done it, but my first, I think, needs to be clarified before this passes. Courcelles 19:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Thanks for sorting out may>shall, it slipped my mind. Otherwise, it's not the intention that all DS expire with the blanking of the Log page. We can clarify that by adding "though active sanctions remain in force". There's a discussion to be had about expiry but probably not on the hoof. For instance, i-bans certainly shouldn't just fold in. Plus some sanctions get pretty complex; example: the same editor being topic-banned for BLP in one area in 2011; but a fresh topic ban also for BLP in another in 2014. Or another editor being t-banned in 2011, then blocked for breaching it in 2017. What are the implications of that?  Roger Davies talk 19:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Roger Davies:, you're right about not doing this too quickly. I've added the language to codify that the blanking does not remove any active sanctions. That said, I think we should have that discussion, that all DS have a sunset clause, sometime in the future, but that's not the purpose of this motion. It just needed to be not ambigious for now. Courcelles 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
@Courcelles: I agree with you about sunset clauses. We also need to look hard at the "awareness" provisions, they're too complicated.  Roger Davies talk 19:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Community comments

Suggested edits:

"Where there is a conflict between any individual provision enacted prior to 2015 authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control." because no committee can constrain future versions of the same committee, but it can make taking a desired action an unnecessary hassle. With the phrase, a future committee that comes upon circumstances such that they wish to tailor discretionary sanctions (DS) can easily do so. Without it, they can still do so, they just have to #1) pass a motion modifying the standards DS and #2) then pass the custom DS. Other than hand, if ya'll insert the phrase now "worst case" scenario is it's never invoked. NE Ent 10:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no constraint on any committee issuing any restriction it feels like but if they're customised DS then they're not standard.  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Change "broadly but reasonably construed" to the long-standing traditional "broadly construed." The trouble with "broadly but reasonably construed" is that it doesn't actually mean anything, or, perhaps more precisely, it's never going mean the same thing to multiple editors, including those who with administrator WP:UAL responding to requests at WP:AE. While well-intentioned, such a phrase is more likely to provide a "nucleation" site for wiki-lawyering than useful guidance to the community. NE Ent 11:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And equally if the thing is too broadly construed then simply the action of making an edit on a talk page can be construed as similar in nature ...  Roger Davies talk 11:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason for "five calendar years" and not just "five years"? The result is that the theoretical average for "five calendar years" is about "five years and six months from date of last use" -- which seems a rather arcane system unless one really wants all such requests for blanking to be made in January <g>. Collect (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's a reason. We don't want to be selectively blanking so, it's five complete years from the end of the year of sanction.If you can think of a succinct way of phrasing this, I'm all ears,  Roger Davies talk 15:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Answering my own question, it could just say "five years has elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it".  Roger Davies talk 15:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Not quite at a NYB level of "succinctness" Spartaz Humbug! 15:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not just drop "calendar"? (succinct and likely to be quite sufficient) Collect (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. The 2015 page should be blanked on 1 January 2021, the 2016 page on 1 January 2022. (The intent is that whole years be blanked at once, not the January 2015 stuff be removed on 1 February 2020.) Maybe it should be four years, not five, come to think of it. Courcelles 18:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Whichever way you guys do this, I think it is long overdue and will help the committee, the clerks, and the broader community keep track of what areas are under active DS, where there are current problems, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Roger that this is overdue housekeeping. There shouldn't be anything controversial in this, and as far as it changes anything in theory, it brings it into line with practice and it will make it much easier to pick up problematic editors who move from one controversial topic to the next as they accumulate sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition of "discretionary sanction"

What exactly is the definition of a discretionary sanction on Wikipedia? The nutshell template has a bit about what these are good for, but it's not really a definition. Can a clerk please add it to the Definitions section? Thanks! — Sebastian 18:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, the definition of "sanction" is self-referential. — Sebastian 19:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an arb or a clerk, but I am an admin who regularly enforces and imposes discretionary sanctions. The best way I've heard them described is as a "zero-tolerance policy". They allow admins to summarily block, topic ban, or impose other restrictions on pages or editors in order to prevent disputes from getting out of hand. Does that answer your question? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds pretty good. I'll add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Definitions for now. — Sebastian 19:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
SebastianHelm, I think you should wait to add content to an ARBCOM guideline page until an arbitrator or clerk okays it. These pages aren't like articles, these are policy pages that govern sanctions that affect both admins and editors. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted you. If you would like to change the definitions or other content of the DS procedure, please ask the committee first via our mailing list (arbcom-l@wikimedia.org) or at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi. I'm posting here on Callanecc's suggestion on my talk page, because I e-mailed the Arbitration Committee about an offline threat I received, and haven't received a response. Has the e-mail been received, and should I expect a reply? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Using the timestamp of the original thread, I was able to find your email in our moderation queue after some searching. Unfortunately, our automatic filters accidentally picked your message up as spam and discarded it. I still have a copy of the email, so I will forward it on to the Committee now. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks for doing that. I'm just about to send another e-mail with some updated information. Can you check that that doesn't get filtered out as spam too? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've put it through. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated, both. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Improving the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions

What is the best way to improve the clarity of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? I notice that some edits aimed at improving clarity have been reverted and the edit summary included the line "Please do not change this page without the committee's authorisation." Another option would be to discuss changes at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. But that page redirects to this talk page. Tweaks to wording seem too noodly to discuss here... plus they'd probably get archived more quickly than would be useful.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Best is probably to make a list of them in user space, then once collated, post them at WP:ARCA.  Roger Davies talk 16:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I have started an edited version at User:Yaris678/Discretionary sanctions. I invite other editors to join in. Yaris678 (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
@Yaris678: Did you intend to change the max time limit a TBAN can be imposed from indef to one year? No comments on the merits of doing so, just noting a difference. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that one. I wasn't sure which points "of up to one year" applied to. I have now tweaked it to make it apply this only to the block point. Hopefully the bullet list will mean that it is now clear which point "of up to one year" applies to. Yaris678 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Yaris678: I'm not at all sure that editing the existing version is helpful at all as it makes it very difficult to see what has changed. Better is to list before and example of specific changes. Furthermore, from what I've seen you are not merely "clarifying" but substantially changing the meaning. You may or may not be aware that the DS were subject to an extensive six-month review just over a year ago, with wide community participation.  Roger Davies talk 11:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This is helpful [7], you just need to make sure that the oldids are correct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed though not very helpful when trying to put together a motion implementing (probably) some/most of them.  Roger Davies talk 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You could use something like 'the changes identified in this diff' in place of explaining them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think "changes identified in this diff" is a good formulation. The URL I have used ommits revision numbers... but maybe it WOULD be a good idea to use revision numbers in the motion so that it can be referred to in future when the page is updated. Yaris678 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't. It's not easy for multiple people to comment on, and even more difficult to meaningfully tweak.  Roger Davies talk 16:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Yaris678: A bulleted list of what was changed and (if it's not obvious) the rationale for doing so might be helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a table like I created at Talk:Theodor Schwann#Big edits. It gives side-by-side comparison, plus a number to enable discussion. BTW, while tweaking during discussion at WP:ARCA may obviously lead to improvements, if people want to edit User:Yaris678/Discretionary sanctions now, I have no objection. Yaris678 (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
A table comparing the versions, perhaps with a final column for an explanation of each change, would be a good way to proceed here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Ho hum. I've just been to have a crack at it now and when I substitute {{Arbitration clarification request}} with a table in it, it doesn't like it. The pipe after the curly bracket, at the start of the table, is taken to be a parameter separator in the template. Does anyone know how to get that to work? Can I just subst the template and then add the table later? Or will someone bite me for disregarding the process? Yaris678 (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Just substitute the template (with a placeholder if you think it would be useful) and add the table with another edit (just don't leave it too long!). Doing that is the sort of thing IAR is intended for (if any rules actually need ignoring). Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Request submitted. I found that by creating the table at User:Yaris678/Discretionary sanctions/comparison and then substituting it into the template everything worked fine. Yaris678 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Tiny issue

This is extremely minuscule, but at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Logging the link to the log is dead. I found the real one and I was going to fix it, but the edit notice scared me away. Kharkiv07Talk 00:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Most likely a clerk ought to change it to WP:DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 Fixed NE Ent 02:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation block

The notice I received about this case included Given the legal, privacy and BLP implications of holding the case in public the Committee has decided to run the case completely in camera, to that effect there will be no public evidence submission or workshop. Editors with direct knowledge of the events and related evidence are requested to email their to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org by May 7, 2015 which is when evidence submission will close. I took this to mean that I should avoid making any further public statements and instead present my evidence by email to Arbcom.

However I see that the subject of the case has made a detailed statement today to The Guardian, mentioning the case underway, at Wikipedia volunteer who blocked 'Grant Shapps' account: I stand by my decision.

I cannot see the point of asking for evidence in camera when a party to the case is unapologetic about their actions, and repeats damaging claims that the account for which a check user was run is Grant Shapps, or someone working with him. No matter how much support there is for the difficult task of managing vandalism on Wikipedia, this cannot excuse someone with the highest trusted rights on Wikipedia, continuing to using the credibility of that position as part of collaborating with The Guardian journalists, generating coverage of Grant Shapps and influencing public opinion about his character, just before the election. This article will serve to keep the story running for another day, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself and the story die out (which anyone who did not want to be pursued by journalists would surely do).

I hope that the highly public stance now taken, just as Arbcom's case starts, for the original statement made to The Guardian and published by them, which says far more than the technical evidence could possibly justify, will outweigh any apology, hand-wringing, and statements of good character which may be going on in camera.

Question

Was there discussion with Arbcom before this public statement was made, and is Arbcom prepared to say something about wisdom of using trial by press rather than waiting for Arbcom's decision, before the UK election finishes on 7th May (at which time journalists will no longer be interested)? --Fæ (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Chase me's choice to respond to media inquiries does not affect our decision to hold the case in camera. This was a decision based on the existence of private evidence, as well as the potential legal and BLP issues, and not a decision based on some sort of special treatment or pre-judgment of Chase me. As for the trial by press concern, our goal here is to handle potential user conduct issues, not to attempt to affect offwiki coverage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply.
For a moment taking the point of view of the BLP subject, rather than the focus of the case on previous Arbcom member Chase me; it is unfortunate that to date nobody with significant trusted or political status in the Wikimedia/Wikipedia organization (like a past Arbcom member), has bothered to apologise to Shapps. The serious damage these allegations from one of our most trusted users has caused his political campaign was easily avoidable, nobody expects check users to be working so closely with journalists to create negative press stories. From public statements to date, the allegations cannot be supported by check user evidence, and yet continue to be defended by "one of the UK’s most senior Wikipedia administrators" (see press interview).
I understand that Arbcom is an internal process, so nobody here is representing Shapps as a party damaged by this case, despite his consistent and credible response to the allegations made by a trusted check user. It seems an unfortunate hole in our governance systems.
Thanks again. --Fæ (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: It is worth highlighting that Chase me has changed his Wikipedia user page to advertize his detailed Guardian article which repeats the allegations against Shapps. A user page promoting this off wiki statement, appears against the spirit of in camera and contradicting the statement in the Arbcom case to be trying to avoid the press when his actions are to continue feeding journalists to increase media impact.[8] --Fæ (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

For review by the Arbitration committee

@AGK, Floquenbeam, DGG, DeltaQuad, Euryalus, Thryduulf, and Yunshui: when admins make statements directed at other editors, even ones you don't like, such as Floquenbeam did here where they called one a "Loon", here where they left Fuck in the permanent history of the article history and in that same statement where they were rude and insulting to a follow functionary, it is a violation of policy. These are not isolated incidents either, Floquenbeam has a shown a pattern of misconduct when it comes to their treatment of other editors and a history of making unnecessarily provocative statements to editors against policy. I know they are a functionary, a former arbitrator and its unlikely anything will happen, but it is not at all acceptable, it violates policy and it makes the project look really, really stupid when nothing is done about it. I am letting you know because you are new to the Arbitration committee and I still have faith you will investigate this, look at their edit history and see what I am talking about is valid. The project doesn't need admins like this performing actions that guarantee a negative impression on the project. PositiveContributor (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@PositiveContributor: If you have an issue with the actions of a Wikipedia administrator, the first process under which to address it is to contact that administrator directly on his or her talkpage. If this does not produce a satisfactory result, you may raise the issue at ANI or, if appropriate, via another dispute resolution process. Only after exhausting these avenues should you consider brining the matter to ARbCom, and you should so do by filing a case request, not via this talkpage. Yunshui 雲水 11:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yunshui The users talk page is locked to prevent that sort of complaint, additionally with their history of abusiveness towards editors all they would do is lock the account to prevent the complaint. Going to ANI would be a waste of time because it would be closed without action and even if it wasn't ANI has no authority over admin misconduct. Even if there 100% of the commenters agreed, there is literally nothing they could do. As long as this account doesn't get locked though I will write up a proper case if I can figure out how, because the process is so complicated and confusing that its virtually impossible to do. PositiveContributor (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Yunshui, Kumioko is not welcome on my talk page, so that route is not open to him. If you're really going to enable this further (I'm trying to remember the last time a community banned troll was encouraged to create another sock and open a thread at ANI), you'll have to strike that first suggestion off the list. My only hope is you don't know who you're talking to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I gave a fairly rote response before fully looking into the issue, sorry. I've since realised the Kumioko connection. Yunshui 雲水 11:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I was too brusque there; I'm so familiar with this person, I forget not everyone recognizes the signs as quickly. Of course you didn't know who you were talking to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey, no problem - I should have looked a bit closer first, then blocked (as you can see, it didn't take very long for me to get suspicious...), instead of bothering to respond. Yunshui 雲水 11:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I lost my CU bit when I resigned (in spite of claims to the contrary, I'm not a functionary), but I can guess what was in the link. I appear to have forgotten about the I part of RBI, so I'll work more on that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted edit from another sock. This was also Kumioko editing from an IP address. Hat and archive? Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
No objections here. Yunshui 雲水 11:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Internal

I seriously doubt there is any impropriety here, but given the impression created in this matter, it may be something to discuss internally. (No, I am not interested in publicly pursuing this any further, other than noting that I seem to have been caught in the middle of two admins disagreeing over adminly things that I don't make it my business to understand, that is, speedy deletion.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No response to e-mail sent to ArbCom

Hi. I just wanted to post a follow-up to this issue. I never received a reply to my e-mail, when I reported an offline threat that I had received in relation to editing a Wikipedia article. I didn't really expect the ArbCom to be able to do much - there was no evidence linking the threat to any specific editor, for example - but it would have been nice to receive a reply stating that the issue had been noted at least. The whole experience was quite frightening and I would have benefitted from the acknowledgement. Perhaps this is something that can be reflected upon, so that if this happens to someone else in future, they at least get a reply? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, could you please send that again? Our mailing list software (Mailman) seems to have hidden it. Evidently due to a typo I'm told. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Have done, Doug Weller. Could you confirm receipt? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, nothing received. Are you definitely sending to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org ? Try copy and paste. Doug Weller (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I've just checked and it was sent to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. I have tried again, copying the address into Gmail from your message, just to be sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't the Arbcom email refuse to accept emails unless they are from an authorised address? I recall having similar problems in the past. DuncanHill (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sending it from my registered and confirmed address, if that's what you mean by authorised? As a last resort, I suppose I could always just paste the e-mail here, since the issue that it relates to was some time ago and it's perhaps not such a sensitive matter now. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that the Arbcom email address has it's very own list of addresses to accept emails from, which most of us aren't on. As I recall what I did was to copy my email to one or two Arbs, and also post a "check your email" message on their talk pages. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the clarification. If Doug Weller or another ArbCom member can confirm whether my further attempt to get through has failed, I can try e-mailing individual members. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Cordless Larry, I and a few other Arbs get all the email sent to the list, mainly spam, but everything, so that we can dump it or let it through. So when I see something that should be cleared to go through to the list, I approve it and it goes through. Go ahead and send it to me via my talk page. I'll try to figure out what happened to it when I get a chance. I'm not sure how fast Mailman is so it may still be on its way. Doug Weller (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, I've now e-mailed it directly to you, Doug Weller. Thanks for all your help. Also, just to let you know that the link on the top right of your user page seems to be broken (I used the link on the left instead). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the topic of moderation touched on by DuncanHill—the mailing list has an "auto-accept" list, but mails from senders not on that list are held in moderation. Because the vast majority of the mail held for moderation is spam, it is possible mail may be accidentally discarded. In addition, to cut down on the amount of spam received, filters are put in place that auto-discard mail that matches certain patterns. It seems that was the case here with the initial mail sent. Anyway, thanks for the ping Cordless Larry; it has now been brought to the attention of the Committee. LFaraone 18:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Great - yes, Doug replied to my e-mail to him to say that it had been found. I'll have to be more careful to avoid "certain patterns" in future! :-) Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it; in this case it was an overzealous filter that I have been told has been corrected. LFaraone 18:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I was told the same thing about my first email address that I used, that it was labeled spam because it was a Yahoo! email account. I'm using GMail now. Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: that's a different issue unfortunately :( T66818; basically, Yahoo has a DMARC policy of "only Yahoo IP addresses can send mail from @yahoo.com". Gmail checks this policy when processing mail, notes the mail was "forged" (because it was resent from a WMF server), and marks it as spam/impersonation. Alas. LFaraone 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I was using Gmail today, but in any case, this is now dealt with, so thanks all for your help. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, LFaraone, that makes sense. I have linked to my Wikipedia account and I probably sent the email through Wikipedia email service. That might explain why some other editors never received my email messages. Now I have a GMail account, I can email directly. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I got caught up in the "Yahoo problem" recently and eventually figured it out. Would it be possible to put a notice in the section of Preferences having to do with email, to the effect that Yahoo doesn't work? I don't know where to go to ask about such things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ohconfucius

It looks like, according to WP:EDR, that Ohconfucius's suspended topic ban expired and it looks like it was never reinstated. Could someone do the necessary changes on WP:EDR? Armbrust The Homunculus 21:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed them. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
many thanks. -- Ohc ¡digame! 04:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Alerts

An editor has to be alerted before action can be taken. What do we do when articles are subject to more than one kind of DS? There are aspects of articles that might be covered by one but not the other.

It would be helpful to have a template to which we could add multiple DS alerts, but at the moment (I believe) all we can do is add more than one template to article and user talk, which looks heavy-handed and repetitive (especially as the templates all appear to say the same thing unless you click on the links). Or is warning about one set of DS sufficient for action to be taken under any of them? Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great idea. (Warning under one set of DS is not sufficient for action on all of them, AFAIK.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ls35. It would be nice if we had a template that could double up, e.g. {{subst:alert|blp|gg}} with links to both decisions. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman - compromised account desysop and block

@GorillaWarfare: Could you (or someone else) please post the formal statement and notices as required by the desysop procedure please? Or clarify that this wasn't done on behalf of the Committee, in which case this would be a fairly new occurrence wouldn't it (someone gets desysoped at the request of a different admin)? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It might be considered to be a self-request, even if done in private (usually not preferable, but sometimes that happens). --Rschen7754 05:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The temporary block and removal of permissions was done at the request of Kevin following a private communication with the Committee. Keilana has also been in contact with Kevin and has left a note at AN/I. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: The desysop was not performed via the Level I or II desysop procedures. It was self-requested; I was merely the messenger. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin was unblocked earlier today. Any comments about his regaining admin tools belong at the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is still ongoing at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request for reinstatement of sysop rights (Special:Permalink/666776514), where restoration of administrative privileges has not yet been carried out because bureaucrats are awaiting comment from the committee: arbitrators have indicated that committee discussions were still ongoing, and there is a significant degree of uncertainty among bureaucrats as to the precise role of the committee in this matter.
As bureaucrats holding the request in abeyance isn't fair to the requesting user, please consider issuing a temporary injunction if the expected comments will not be forthcoming soon. –xenotalk 16:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I have posted the Committee response at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard: [9]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Advanced permission activity

Could somebody please clarify to me the activity requirements for advanced permissions? This motion seems to indicate that it's 5 actions in 3 months for each tool, however these statistics seem to indicate that some (non-exempt) functionaries don't meet these requirements, am I misunderstanding something? Kharkiv07 (T) 16:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We are working on this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Mmk, thank you. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions canvassed

I've proposed a small change to the blocking policy that would require admins to put enough information in the block log for others to be able to see why the block was made. If you have any thoughts on this accountability/transparency measure, I'd appreciate reading them at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Transparency. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions not listed for American Politics

The subpage Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions doesn't list the American Politics 2 case or the American Politics topic area as subject to discretionary sanctions. Please make the appropriate updates. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That is an admin-only page so I will let others on the clerk list know about this. Thanks for noticing this, Robert. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a red-link in what is supposed to be the list of cases. I see that that is transcluded from a template, and have also left a comment on the talk page of the template. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Fixed! Thanks again. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal Motion for Gorilla Warfare to recuse in ongoing case.

On the outset of the case GW was approached by User:Ched for possible bias on this subject [[10]] (It's the section formal request link wasn't working for me). She declined to do this. Recently she made a controversial action as "an admin" with regards to Eric Corbett which currently has an open arb case request. She has made demeaning comments to myself, she has also shown her bias in overriding another administrator actions without consultation and she has attacked fellow arb and basically accused them of being sexist too. The one tying factor to all of these is the GGTF case, this case and those involved and her ideas of how to fix the gender gap. That is a particularly important piece of information if they are as I suspect using this case and their admin actions to accomplish their goal or lost perspective during. They have been approached on their talkpage and this was her response [[11]]. I do think input from the community is needed and not just a private discussion among arbs, although I understand the merits may be discussed in private. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The Committee has considered the recusal request as outlined in the Arbitration policy and there is a rough consensus that GorillaWarfare is not required to recuse from the Lightbreather case. This is largely because the association between this case and the matters you raise above is too indirect to justify it. I note the community discussion suggestion, but Arbpol is explicit on how recusal requests are handled. Happy to discuss further if required, here or on my talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I was told the committee has final say but I think there are better and more transparent ways to handle it. Thanks you for your reply, I see no need to pursue the manner further. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arb enforcement block -> unblock

There is a pending arbitration request regarding this case at WP:ARC; please direct further comments there or to another venue. (Per discussion on clerks-l.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Arbitration_enforcement.2C_the_limits_of_WP:INVOLVED.2C_and_.28inevitably.29_Eric_Corbett. I've let Reaper Eternal know that doing so carries the possibility of being desysopped. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Reaper overturned what he explicitly knew to be an AE block, and he did so knowing he lacked the necessary consensus to do so. The general rule at WP:AE is "Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee" - but I would suggest that given the absolute intentionality of his actions, and past punishments generally handed out in such situations, desysopping and stripping of his advanced privileges would be appropriate. If he thought Gorilla's block somehow violated BK's close, he had ways of seeking justice for the perceived wrong - very intentionally violating a red line is not one of them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you think that they were unaware? They are probably emailing each other furiously attempting to figure a way out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
In case you missed my (Bach) sermon: I learned that the magic words here are AGF and IAR. (Kevin, I mentioned the stroll I recommended to you now in the arb request. Did you ever go?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
"Furiously" overstates it a little, but yes we saw that. As a personal view we have whole tranches of people all carrying out good faith actions that contradict each other. My reading of Reaper Eternal's action is that they saw:
  • the no-action close as an admin action delivering an AE outcome (regardless of its evidential merits),
  • the subsequent GW block as an illegitimate action as it overturned the AE outcome, and
  • this lifting of the block as valid as it restored what AE had originally imposed.
There's a logic to all that. There's also other good- faith objections to it. Either way I reckon we should have a short sharp case to discuss it and clarify who did what, what to do about it, and how to make this simpler and easier to follow next time around. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I said it elsewhere: the best way to avoid drama would be to not even let reports get to AE. I was there. Talk between people is better, please before even considering to complain: a revert or rephrase of an edit could solve a problem, making for less sleepless nights for many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I did Gerda. I don't always agree with you, and think you're often a bit unnecessarily obtuse in how you speak, but to let you know, I do genuinely appreciate you :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Euryalus - since GW's block was indubitably an AE block and it's doubtful at best that Black Kite'a ultrafast closure of the AE represents an enforcement action, how do you feel about restoring the original AE block? Pinging @Courcelles: too, since she'd basically told Adjwiley that she would view any modification of the block without consensus as a problem. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parties to arb cases who have left rather than face the grim process

I can think of two now, EncycloPetey and Technical13. Obviously many have left after a case disillusioned, and I believe even non-parties (such as User:Dpmuk) have left or "gone IP". Are there more?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC).

I'm not aware of any formal tracking of editors who have left shortly before or during a case. The archives are here, if you'd like to have a look. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The really remarkable thing is that anyone at all sticks around after involvement with the ArbCom. It's an utterly toxic, destructive process. Everyking (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear who left and who started a new account. Sometimes it's a good thing for a user to leave if they've been misusing the encyclopedia to advance fringe theories or conduct ethnic battles (or other negatives, not thinking of anybody in particular). Jehochman Talk 03:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Undoubtedly, but it isn't just the net-negatives who are driven away by the arbitration process. Far from it. Everyking (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I presume it's "AGF" to say that they left. Possibly it's "AGF" to imply that they secretly came back and kept up the good work. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC).
If they return under a new name and aren't causing trouble, then it's really not an issue, is it? More often, though, it seems that they reappear and quickly get into the same issues that brought them to ArbCom in the first place (although it's impossible to know, as obviously any cases where people successfully returned and were productive contributors is invisible compared to the obvious socks and returning users ArbCom and the community have dealt with.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Query

Hereupdated it was said that a mammoth clean-up was due to happen in May. Has this happened? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

I don't recall anyone saying about a "mammoth clean up". Certainly, some work has already been done on possible consolidations but it's not particularly urgent, especially as a veview of the processes is underway.  Roger Davies talk 19:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
What work has already been done? Someone pointed to User:Callanecc/sanctions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
I guess nothing, then. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC).

Committee history

I've made a change to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History with this edit. Part of the reasoning for doing this is to make this a complete listing of all arbitrators past and present (though I was unsure whether to include User:28bytes or not). Another reason for doing this is to make clearer when current arbs were first elected, as for current arbs you have to peer at the graph to work this out, and for Roger and Salvio and Courcelles and AGK you have to peer at the larger graph to work this out - much easier to have it stated in text form. Doing it this way might make updates in the future easier as well (previously, errors had crept in). I also noticed that election details need updating, though that would take a fair amount of time to sort out. As I said in the edit summary, apologies for pinging all the arbs (except Courcelles) with that edit! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe 28bytes could be listed with an asterisk, like in sports records books (elected but did not serve).
It's been interesting for me to go through the ten years of Signpost archives, where a lot of this information is recorded and see how normal it was for there to be at least one arbitrator resignation each year, sometimes a few. I imagine that the actual work of being an arbitrator is quite different from what one expects it will be. Liz Read! Talk! 12:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is a lot more behind the scenes stuff than is apparent to an observer. Ban appeals take up a lot more time than I thought for example, and there are always emails to deal with. If we had a single hive mind then some things could be done quicker but it is absolutely right that we don't, as sometimes there is one thing that someone picks out which the others had not spotted and turns the tide of opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It's becoming a "perennial" issue, that ArbCom comes with an overly heavy workload. And as I seem to be saying perennially, I wish that ArbCom could find ways to devolve some duties elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Encourage the community to act. When sufficiently riled up, it can get a good consensus on stuff. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's just unfortunate that discussion and dispute resolution doesn't resolve many conflicts. I have some ideas why that may be so but they are just speculations about human nature and are tangential to this discussion. Maybe I'll put it all in an essay one day. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Educate the community. Most folks think arbitrators decide arbitration cases, which is a reasonable enough assumption. They don't realize that the arbs decide appeals, deal with loads of email queries, along with X, Y, and Z, and -- oh yes, the occasional arbitration case when they can squeeze it in. I'm not sure how to do this. An article in the Signpost (with an obvious title like "What do arbitrators really do?") might be good for a start. Maybe the community will be more willing to devolve some of arbcom's responsibilities if they become convinced it would help decide cases more quickly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost idea sounds like a great idea to me, personally. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
We'd welcome it. ResMar 04:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I, too, would encourage someone from the Signpost to interview the Committee about this point. That's a very good idea. But I'll also point out that when I and others have suggested duties for the Committee to send elsewhere, most of the opposition has come from within ArbCom, rather than from the general community. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell was planning to do something like this I think. I know he approached me informally about it a few months back, but the timing didn't work for me at the time (iirc the story would have been posted during a time I was without internet access for a week so wouldn't have been able to respond to any subsequent questions), but I get the impression his Wikipedia time is not as extensive currently as it once was? I did say that I would try and write a diary of my arbcom activities. However instead of blocks of time that I anticipated I find I'm doing a little but here and there throughout the day which makes that more difficult (I'm also crap at keeping diaries!), but if there is interest I'll try (it'll probably not be next week though for personal reasons). Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish What did you have in mind? I ask because I don't remember it at all like that. From what I've seen and the recent-ish BASC-RFC ending up endorsing the status quo. This is a good example of a major time-sink which the committee only handles because no one else will take it/the community cannot come up with an alternative.  Roger Davies talk 07:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see below. You are right about BASC. I suspect that changes to BASC need to come from within ArbCom first, rather than asking the community to devise the changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
There have been interviews with arbitrations, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-25/ArbCom interview and I think there have been others that I can't locate right now. I think it would be a good annual feature though as the makeup of the committee changes, bringing different points of view. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Because so much of the work is behind closed doors, there is little the community can do to help, even in analysing what could be done more easily. I did read a good proportion of the leaked mailing list material, which of course was many arbitrators ago. I thought, at the time, that if they had known their emails were going to be leaked, they would have conducted themselves better, which would have been more productive. Perhaps there is something valuable there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC).
I read the same leaked material, and what struck me as relevant to what we are discussing here centered on two things: the tendency for ArbCom to have to deal with stuff that really should be dealt with elsewhere, but isn't and so ArbCom has gotten stuck with it by default, and the tendency for users to e-mail ArbCom about issues that really do not fall under privacy concerns and therefore could more transparently be handled on-Wiki, but where the path of least resistance tends to lead ArbCom to just continue the discussion via e-mail. In principle, I think most of us in the community would like to see ArbCom focus mainly on the arbitration cases that are conducted on-site, and not have to spend as much time on other things, including e-mail. Roger Davies and I worked together very successfully, in my opinion, to create what is now at WP:ARB#What happens to incoming ArbCom email?. In my opinion, this is a good thing in that it encourages users not to send messages to ArbCom that could better be dealt with elsewhere. There is still the problem of how hard it is for ArbCom to keep as much material as possible on-Wiki, resulting both in a loss of transparency and in an increase in unseen work for Arbs. I tried to address this with what is at User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom. Members of the community have seemed to regard that draft favorably when it was discussed in the past, but past Committees have rejected it. I wonder if the new membership might want to give it a second look? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that I have commented on that before, but as it doesn't have a talk page where would that be? My initial half-asleep skim-read of it gives me the impression that it's too prescriptive ("must" vs "should") and would not have the flexibility to cope with situations that don't fit cleanly into its categories. Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Thryduulf. Yes, I asked all the candidates in the last ArbCom election about it, and most of you (but not DGG) expressed potentially positive views about it then. At your request, I've made User talk:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom blue, and I look forward to comments from anyone and everyone, whenever you have time for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, Tryptofish, your perennial proposal that arbitrators (and arbitrators alone, not functionaries, not WMF staff, not banned users, not trolls, not vandals) be required to disclose the text of their emails is unworkable. First, it will politicise and divide the committee even more. Secondly, it will further deter people from becoming arbitrators. Thirdly the response will likely be to push discussion off the official lists and onto unofficial channels (IRC, Skype, Google groups etc).  Roger Davies talk 07:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear, have I become a "perennial"? If so, it's because the problem hasn't been resolved. Above, you asked me where members of the Committee have resisted my suggestions, and here, you just answered your own question. I brought it up because other editors asked about it here. I'm not trying to force it on you. It's just a suggestion, motivated by my desire to help. And other editors seemed to be interested, including one member of your Committee (and all but one of the members elected in the most recent election expressed some degree of interest when I asked about it then). It's only a draft, so anyone can feel free to fix what's wrong with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"What this page is for"

The notice above says, "This page is focused on discussing the information on the page attached to this one..." However there are many redirects from other arb-related talk pages to this talk page.[12] I came here from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions looking to discuss discretionary sanctions. Is this the place? Manul ~ talk 23:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it is Manul. The notice could probably be amended to, "information on several committee pages." AGK [•] 03:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

ACDS wording issue

This passage at WP:ACDS seems problematic: Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.. How is anyone to "ensure" that? People can remove templates from their talk pages at any time, and there's no guarantee any edit summary will mention the template. Are we expected to look individually at every single edit made to someone's talk page for a whole year? This rule should be void if the templated editor deleted the template rather than left it in place or archived it in a sequential archive page linked to from their talk page. Given that it seems to imply that an error in this regard can lead to sanctions, its present wording seems unreasonable and WP:GAMEable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The checking for duplicate alerts is partly automated. Anyone can search the user's talk page history for 'discretionary sanctions alert'. These alert tags normally stay in place even if the user deletes the DS alert message. In the process of leaving a new notice, the system will do the search for you, so you have to be quite obtuse (as I sometimes am) to actually leave the person two notices in the same year. The rules say that only the official alert message has any standing for purposes of enforcement, so there isn't a problem with non-standard alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Ed types faster than me, so much of what I started to write is useless. Also, his answer is better. But one thing he didn't mention that you might find useful is that this is documented here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Ds/alert/doc#logging. (don't yell at me, I'm just the messenger. I have no idea why this is buried so deeply.) I tried it at User talk:Floquensock, and Ed is right, when you try to leave a sanction, you get a red box with a link to search for past warnings (but if you mistype something it won't work right). Now realistically, I cannot believe that someone would get in trouble for accidentally issuing a duplicate sanction occasionally; surely there would have to be a history of doing it. But mere mortals like you and I can't reword WP:ACDS to be clearer without getting our hands slapped. Anyway, I've solved this problem for myself by never notifying anyone of discretionary sanctions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I've taken the same "un-tactic" of just never notifying anyone of discretionary sanctions any more; I ask an admin to do it if I think it needs to be done. It's been my experience that when it's not delivered by an uninvolved admin it's simply ignored anyway (if I were a WP:GAMING type I could use that to my advantage of course, but I'm not here to WP:WIN; I'd rather that the notices be taken seriously and behavior become more collegial, than someone ignore the notice and get hung for it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
You're right, of course, the current wording is really open to a reading that would be absurd in the extreme. The intent, of course, is to authorise sanctions for someone who is clearly abusing using the alert mechanism to do something like win a content dispute. It's not intended to be a threat of sanctions for a second alert, which are bound to happen, but to stop profound abuse of the system. Second, or even third, or even fourth alerts are going to happen because the logs (and our ability to search page histories) are flawed (the old system of logging alerts on case pages was much superior in the "easy to search" department, for sure.) My 3 AM brain is not going to come up with any sort of competent suggestion for changing it, but we're aware of this thread. Courcelles (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. I cannot see that this is open to such a reading, although Brad is right that it's not a threat to ordinary editors adding alerts in good faith. I also don't see any problem in searching page histories, that's what revision history search is for. You don't need to look for edit summaries. But why even do that? Just search for "discretionary sanctions alert" in "tag filter" on the history page if you are really concerned. And the only reason most editors might want to do that is to avoid annoying someone already alerted. I don't see any reason to worry about this or reword anything. Sorry, I should have responded earlier today before mentioning it on the list, but I was busy in real life. Doug Weller (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

To answer the original question, you are expected to ensure you don't do so by paying attention to the following message, which is displayed when you try to alert somebody:

It was designed to be as obtrusive as possible so that people could not skirt this obligation, but I suppose it also may render redundant the above discussion about whether the obligation itself is reasonable. It certainly seems reasonable when it is made this easy… AGK [•] 00:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Regulation Committee and alternatives to consensus

Members of the community are invited to give their thoughts at a request for comment to discuss Wikipedians' alternatives to consensus, and the formation of a proposed Regulation Committee. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Expired blocks

Is there any recourse at all with regard to already-expired blocks? I.e. a short block was issued, others agreed it was an improper block, but the block expired before the unblock request was responded to. I just accepted it and moved on at the time, but it keeps being used against me in discussions, in a "not-very-veiled threat to see you pilloried vexatiously" manner. It's happened repeatedly, and again only a day or two ago. I'm under the impression blocks cannot be cleared from the log, but that when blocks are overturned there's some record of this. I have no interest in seeing the admin sanctioned (I don't even remember their username), and it was long enough ago (and there were enough immediate negative responses to it) I doubt the same admin would issue the same kind of "block one side in a dispute at the request of the other side so they can 'win'" block again.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Now-moot discussion of where to ask this question.
::@SMcCandlish: Please see this page's editnotice. This page is to be used for discussion of formal announcements by the Arbitration Committee; general discussion should be held at WT:AC. Would you like me to move this section there? L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please. I was directed here by another banner, at the top of WT:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee; I was trying to follow those directions. Maybe that one should be updated to point to WT:AC for more general discussions, as well as to this one for BAC discussion; it was easy to misunderstand it as only indicating "don't post here, but there" rather than "don't post here, but there if it's about BAC".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, moved here. I don't think that page is trafficked enough by people not familiar with the pages to be worth extending that notice, as (IMHO only) the notice is semi-clear and the editnotice at WT:ACN is pretty clear as well. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comment is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Mike V • Talk 04:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Dolovis (August 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Dolovis at 18:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
“Unblocked” notice on my talk page
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. [13] additional condition: "... not to edit any article edited by user:Djsasso within the previous 30 days."


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • [15] additional condition: "... not to edit any article edited by user:Djsasso within the previous 30 days."
  • Removal of additional condition


Statement by Dolovis

I have not been given any explanation as to why the Arb Board has forced me to accept an interaction restriction with User/Admin:DJSasso. I am aware of no complaint against me asking for or requiring such a restriction. As such, I request that such restriction be removed.

Statement by Djsasso

Not really sure I have much to say here other than Dolovis's past blocks for sock puppeting were all caused by him targeting me (and others) for harassment. Using sock puppets for good hand bad hand while targeting my edits and articles I either created or heavily edited. He has a pretty well documented history of activity which is clearly geared at disrupting me and my editing. Seems like a pretty reasonable restriction for removing the most recent block. To be honest with his history I am surprised he was unblocked in the first place, even with this restriction. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

I would be rather curious to know how this came about as well, actually. I simply assumed that this was generated by BASC of its own accord given DJSasso was a target of Dolovis' latest run of sockpuppetry. But IIRC, Ravenswing was also targeted by Dolovis' latest socks, so I never understood why one but not both.

Also a topic of curiosity is why Dolovis wants the restriction lifted. This seems to be a "just because" request. And for an editor who has been the subject of at least three edit restrictions - and so far as I know, they are all still active - I would suggest there needs to be a much better reason given before any of them are given consideration for lifting. Resolute 03:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

IMHO, the restriction should be lifted & Dolovis given a chance to demonstrate that it's no longer required. There's a fine line between Preventative & Punitive, where restrictions are involved. GoodDay (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ravenswing

I was unsettled when Dolovis was unblocked -- I feel strongly that he's a disruptive influence -- and unsurprised when he promptly resumed some of the same disruptive practices which contributed to many a past dispute. However, this is not a proper venue to discuss the propriety of his being unblocked. I'm likewise unsurprised here: this is not the first time that Dolovis has agreed to some stipulation or to obey some rule so as to quiet a dispute, only to claim a lack of understanding down the road, when he didn't simply ignore (or deny making) any such agreement in the first place.

To address Resolute's query about why I wasn't included in the restriction, I wouldn't think it was necessary. DJSasso and I edit many of the same articles, and in any event, Dolovis' targeting of DJSasso was far more comprehensive than his targeting of me, which mostly revolved around creating socks to file AfDs on articles I created.

As far as this restriction goes, it is high time Dolovis was held to his word. No one "forced" him to agree to anything, and if he felt such stipulations to be injurious to his dignity, he could have always walked away ... and can do so now, as Salvio suggests. I want a far better reason from Dolovis for reneging on his word than that he fails to understand something about which he had the opportunity to ask in the first place. Ravenswing 15:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

  • As an outsider who spent a little while looking at this, it was apparent that, as Salvio said, such an agreement had been reached (or at least that the unblocking admin believed it had). What was not apparent was the reason. DJSasso gives their view as to why this would be. Presumably this matter was covered in previous on-wiki dispute resolution, including that which lead to the block of Dolovis. Can the committee then confirm that this is the case and provide a link to such documentation.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Dolovis: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Dolovis: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Your unblock was conditional on you accepting this restriction and, indeed, you accepted it; and, for my money, the restriction should not be lifted, for the moment. If this is causing you undue hardship, you may withdraw your consent to it, on the understanding that your block will be immediately reinstated, though. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This restriction was placed because the consensus of those Arbitrators commenting on your BASC appeal felt it was necessary to prevent the disruption which resulted in you getting blocked in the first place. This appeal, and the comments by others on it, make me believe that this was the correct decision. If after 12 months without breaching your unblock conditions you can demonstrate it is no longer required, then I would consider lifting it at that point. Alternatively, per Salvio, you may withdraw your consent at any time on the understanding that your block will be immediately reinstated. You may appeal that block in a few months, but do note that this condition would almost certainly also be a requirement for any subsequent unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As Thryduulf stated, this requirement is a condition of being unblocked. Dolovis, if you've found you no longer can live with it, the option is then to reinstate the block. You voluntarily agreed to these terms and no reason is provided here for why they should be changed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I was quite against this unblock, so not surprisingly, I have absolutely no intention of changing the restriction. Courcelles (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with my colleagues. I'm not happy about agreeing to an unblock and shortly after trying to get the restriction lifted, and strongly suggest that you avoid any appearance of getting anywhere near violating it. Doug Weller (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, per Seraphimblade. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the others. Removing the restriction is to likely to cause trouble. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbcom positions 2016

Here is as good a place as any to give advance notice of early retirement from the Arbitration Committee at the end of this year. It's been an entirely worthwhile experience, but it takes too much time away from what I enjoy a lot more, which is the writing of obscure articles on eighteenth century shipping and colonial figures. I have Wikipedia hours for either Arbcom or articles - after a year doing Arbcom I'd like to get back to the topics I left behind.

Am flagging this early to encourage anyone thinking of running in the upcoming elections, on the basis that there will now be an extra spot available. Some advice to anyone contemplating a run - the volume of work is high, most issues require more detailed analysis than time permits, and the outcomes aren't always cheerfully received. Further, consensus decision-making is essential but understandably causes delays and compromise. More positively, Arbcom offers an excellent opportunity to address some major issues facing Wikipedia. If you like dispute resolution, think there's work to do to improve the editing environment, and have plenty of time on your hands, then you should nominate for election and see how you go.

I'll be staying on the Committee until the end of the year and have plenty more to do in that time. But in the spirit of this message, thanks to all the case participants (and members of the Committee) for what has been an interesting experience since January 1. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

DS number not a good idea

The numbers on the DS page (e.g. 7.4) are not a good idea, because:

  1. Makes the page look too much like code of statutes, and WP:NOTSTATUTE, of course.
  2. If you provide anchors, someone might wiklink to them. And then someday some committee might revise the procedures, and then "7.4" might not be the fourth section, so then you have hyperlinks pointing to the wrong section, or sections numbered like 7.2, 7.3 7.31, 7.4, or 7.2, 7.4 ... I'm actually old enough to have lived through the horror of BASIC line numbers -- that's so 70's. Anyway, this is supposed to a word focused encyclopedia, right? NE Ent 22:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I concur. We already run into this problem at WP:CSD and some other pages that have unwisely used numbered list, with "dead" numbers being retained, and criteria out of numerical order, to avoid causing confusion resulting from links, and naming of numbered criteria, in old posts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If anchors are to be provided, I'd suggest using descriptive, abbreviated, tags rather than numbers. For instance, the current 7.4 might be labeled "sanction.log" or "sanction.notice". T. Canens (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think this sounds reasonable. In the wake of the Arbitration Enforcement case, there will already be changes there, so you might want to bring this to their attention. NE Ent, on the other hand, gets aquatic creatures thrown at him for bringing up the godawful mess of GOTOs that I would rather not remember. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
T Canens' idea is good; I'd support that. If we want to move away from decimal numbering, we definitely need each current instance replaced. There is a need for this numbering in day-to-day practice, even if the current execution is undesirable. (On that, I do agree having this as a Code isn't really what we want, or very wiki-like.) AGK [•] 10:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Given the consensus I'd be willing to do this for y'all if someone wants to lower the protection down to template editor or lower. NE Ent 11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@NE Ent: Can you instead work on a draft to your userspace or a subpage? It would be good to agree on the new reference system before it's actually implemented. Incidentally, kudos on your recent run of good ideas for improving the arbitration pages. AGK [•] 14:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@AGK: I made a rough draft at User:Timotheus Canens/DS tags. We can keep the existing decimal anchors around but hidden, for existing uses. T. Canens (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
That looks great. NE Ent 23:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

AGK, Timotheus Canens: okay, it's been five days -- given that no one thinks this is a bad idea, you don't really want me to file a pita, bureaucratic WP:ARCA, do ya? Then ya'll would all have to do that voting and clerking stuff for something that really shouldn't be that big a deal. NE Ent 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the clerks list asking if we can make the change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for lifting Topic Ban during this case

I have recently been listed as a party at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. I am currently under a topic ban for pages which will almost certainly come under discussion here. Some other editors have recently been extremely "inventive" in playing "Gotcha" and suggesting that I have broken my Topic Ban, meaning that I am constantly "editing on egg shells". I am requesting that my topic ban is lifted for the purposes of this case so that I do not need to worry about this and can present succinct and clear evidence to this committee. I am suggesting the ban lif would apply only to the ArbCom pages, not mainspace articles or elsewhere.DrChrissy (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions (September 2015)

Original discussion
Implemented by Callanecc. Closing as moot - WP:NOTBURO w/ permission on clerks-l. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by NE Ent at 01:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
with word tags as suggested by User:Timotheus Canens/DS tags


Statement by NE Ent

The numbers on the DS page (e.g. 7.4) are not a good idea, because: a) they make the page look too much like code of statutes, and WP:NOTSTATUTE, of course, and b) If you provide anchors, someone might wiklink to them. And then someday some committee might revise the procedures, and then "7.4" might not be the fourth section, so then you have hyperlinks pointing to the wrong section, or sections numbered like 7.2, 7.3 7.31, 7.4, or 7.2, 7.4

@Guerillero: fully protected page. NE Ent 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Discretionary sanctions: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Discretionary sanctions: Arbitrator views and discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Typo in AC template

There's a substituted template (somewhere) that is used at the top of proposed decision pages:

{{ombox | type = style | image = [[File:Nuvola apps important orange.svg|45px|link=]] | text = '''Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee and the clerks.'''&lt;p&gt;Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]]. }}

Its |text= should actually read "Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks." The "and" there is ungrammatical, implying either that there are people who are members of both the AC and of the clerks simultaneously, or alternatively that the AC and the clerks have to both edit it together. I could probably track the tag down, but I'd expect that the template documentation for it also says that mere editors cannot touch it, since I see similar notices at other AC-related templates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I've got no issues with that change being made, but I don't know which template it is. One of the clerks will be able to find it quicker than I can I'm sure! Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish and Thryduulf:  Done. Do you need me to post to clerks-l? Doesn't seem significant enough to warrant a clerks-l post. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
No need as far as I'm concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission

The RfC to appoint 3 individuals to the 2015 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission has begun. Nominations will be accepted through 23:59 (UTC), 16 October 2015. Following the nomination period, comments will be welcomed to discuss the suitability of the candidates.

Best regards, Mike V • Talk 01:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments on ArbCom and gender

Those interested in the all things ArbCom might be interested in the apparent community opinion of the Committee as expressed at WikiConference USA (questions and comments). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

For those of us who don't have time to watch a 2 hour video, please could you summarise the relevant points. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Not the community opinion; folks who attend a WikiConference are not a representative sample of 122,190 active users. It's likely the vast number of editors is barely aware the committee (and this is a good thing, as it indicates most folks can get along without admin / community / arbcom assistance). NE Ent 09:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The opinions are expressed in the questions to the speaker; starting at 1hr 25min 45sec. (I recommend the whole speech, actually. There's a lot of blank space at the beginning of the clip and the speech starts at about 44min 25sec.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Direct link to 1hr 25min 30sec into video (Q&A session) --Fæ (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Rich for highlighting the videoed Q&A.
The summary of the relevant Arbcom cases, and other issues, was perfectly reasonable, including the statement that the outcome for the community is that those who feel harassed is to avoid Arbcom due to the history of those being harassed being blocked in Arbcom cases. The key advice to anyone who might be harassed is to "keep a low profile". Individual Arbcom members may disagree with this, or feel it unfair, but both the published facts of actions resulting from cases involving harassment, and the perception of the majority of Wikipedians seem well represented by this video and the discussion. I heartily recommend all those interested in Arbcom and related policies take a moment to review the video (the Q&A is about 45 minutes).
My interest is as someone who was blocked with significant real life repercussions, and still has restrictions years later from the same Arbcom case that found that I was harassed, and as a long term member of WM-LGBT and the GenderGap list where discussion of harassment and non-Arbcom solutions has been active for years.
P.S. congratulations to @Pharos: and the others involved in producing such good quality live streamed video on YouTube, a great way to involve the wider community in your conference at little additional cost. --Fæ (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The reality is that ArbCom is grossly unfair. It is structured to be so, and will remain so until vast change takes place to replace the current paradigm. Being on ArbCom requires no prior experience in dispute resolution. Once on ArbCom, there's no training involved to bring a sitting member to a level of competence. ArbCom has eschewed any suggestions of training, claiming the cost is simply too great. It is hardly surprising that ArbCom's response to people being harassed is to make yourself have a lower profile (summarizing from 1:31:10 - 1:31:30 in the video). As is, when ArbCom is faced with a situation with 20 complainants and 1 victim, ArbCom almost universally rules against the 1, further victimizing them. This is akin to 20 robbers complaining a victim resisted too much, with ArbCom agreeing and issuing an edict that victims of robbery should be more compliant. ArbCom as constructed is simply incompetent to deal with situations as this. They lack the knowledge, the experience and the ability to properly handle such situations. I don't blame ArbCom. I blame the community and the WMF for allowing this sort of paradigm to exist. We can't very well blame ArbCom; it'd be like building a structure out of toothpicks and being surprised and critical when the building fails in the first decent storm. The community and the WMF have gotten exactly what they built, and what they've built is horrendous. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Bluntly, I would expect every sitting arbitrator who wasn't present to listen to the speech from start to finish, (there's even a a transcript of the Q&A, though not the whole thing. If you're on ENWP's highest moot court and are unwilling to listen to a two hour talk from a professor holding a named chair at a major university who has written for well over a dozen MSM publications and many journals, is in significant part responsible for getting major legislation through in many states, and is recognized globally as an expert on online harrassment, given that it's universally recognized that ENWP has an online harrassment problem - and given that as arbs, almost every case you accept deals with online harassment - you should step down. For crying out loud - almost all arbs spend more time than this video requires engaging in petty arguments about minor details, let alone drafting cases and in private discussions. You can spend hours arguing about trivialities, but won't spend two hours getting free advice from a recognized expert in online harrassment? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: - although I welcome comments from any and all intrested arbirtrators here, I would particularly like to hear your explanation of why, as a sitting arbitrator on a committee that deals primarily with issues of online harassment, you're unable or unwilling to watch a video of an internationally recognized expert in cyber harrassment who gave a keynote at a Wikimedia conference tailored to our community. I'm fully aware of the details and time-intensive nature of being an arbitrator in general - if you can't spare the time for a less than two hour piece of free advice tailored to WP's issues (in large part,) by an internationally recognized expert in cyber harrassment, how on earth do you have time to fulfill the rest of your arb duties? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The time I am giving to arbitration matters is in blocks of time much smaller than two hour chunks (see my several previous comments about this) - such as the 10 minutes I'm currently on Wikipedia for (I'm also not sure that my internet connection would stay up for that long, given that it fails about 40% of the time on 5-10 minute videos). I therefore have to prioritise my time, and watching a two hour video about "the apparent community opinion of the Committee", which would actually be the opinion of the subset of interested Wikipedians at a regional conference, didn't seem like a good use of that limited time. You however describe the video as "free advice tailored to WP's issues (in large part,) by an internationally recognized expert in cyber harrassment", which is a completely different thing. As for training for arbitrators - if you would like to find a way to resolve the problems of zero budget and the logistics of 15 volunteers in about 6 or 7 different time zones on at least three continents then please arrange some. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Hi User:Thryduulf - The Q&A section came at the end of a keynote by Danielle Citron, internationally recognized expert in cyber harrassment. If your internet connection is an issue, I can probably arrange for the entire thing to be transcribed. I also have trouble seeing a sitting arb not reading the Q&A, because it wasn't just a discussion among US community members, it was a Q&A between US community members and Danielle Citron. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Again, what this actually was is very different to what the initial description implied it to be. I knew there was no chance I could attend this conference (I'm based in the UK) so I didn't pay any attention to the programme. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)So Kevin Gorman thinks harassing people online is a good response to online harassment. Counterproductive. There's an open invitation for an editor to watch and summarize the video for the committee, anyone that cares should just do that. As the committee is time limited AND doesn't set policy this notion that taking limited wiki time away from the responsibilities to watch a video isn't a reasonable argument. I watched about four minutes from the position linked above, about one minute was Professor Citron, following by someone from the audience claiming 'every arbitration case in the last two years has resulted in all of them being banned.' Which is nonsense of course; there are not that many cases in the first place, not all Wikipedians are gender identified, and this is not a ban. So personally I'm not interested. Given typical reading rates are 250 to 300 words per minute (wpm) vs 150 to 160 wpm for speech [16], presenting information n writing is far more efficient communication. I'm sure the social and human interaction aspects of the conference added value for folks there in person, but watching a video isn't the same. NE Ent 01:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm sure the social and human interaction aspects of the conference added value for folks there in person, but watching a video isn't the same I fully agree with this. I got very significantly more from Wikimania 2014 where I was there person, even though I was on the organising team and so working rather than attending, than I did from the videos from Mexico that I managed to see. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
          • It's understood that being an arb is a volunteer position, and as such, the only deliverables are what individual volunteers are in a position to provide. It's understandable if some folks are busy, but it's a concern if suggesting spending a couple hours to get an introduction to current US legal perspectives on online harassment is considered an unreasonable imposition. If it is, this calls into question the current group's personal commitment to maintaining a harassment-free community, and its capacity to cope with its existing workload. Although it is quicker to read transcripts, part of the point of watching a public speech is making that personal commitment of time to actually listen to what is being said, and sharing your reactions afterwards with others. There is a tendency to think that the efficiency of electronic communication means there is no longer any need to bother with time-wasting social norms, but this is not necessarily the case. Human biology didn't disappear when we invented the Internet, and our physical experience of watching and listening to other people gives us context and subtle cues that help us communicate. What we're doing together isn't simply an exercise in mutual data transfer, it's an effort to develop group cohesion. Emotions and personal reactions are part of this process. There seems to be a lot of resistance recently to things like meeting in person, or posting videos, as being "simply too expensive." (And an even more frightening prospect-- the unscheduled, unrecorded "phone call"-- why that's way, way too personal!) At some point all the insistence that human contact is too costly, too inappropriate, and too much trouble begs the question, what's going on here? Is this so called "Wikipedia movement" something truly from the heart, or simply a cynical exercise in optimal exploitation of crowdsourced data? Where is this going? --Djembayz (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • NE, are you seriously sugggesting that requesting explanations from arbs as to why they don't want to view material directly relevant to their roles is harrassment? I don't know an arb policy shortcut for this offhand, but asking Thry why he didn't want to view the video of a transcript of something is an arb equivalent of WP:ADMINACCT, or, like, commonsense. As I already offered, a transcript can be produced if it would help Thry in viewing the material in the first part of the speech (there is already one of the Q&A,) which is given by a world recognized expert in online harrassment, adopted to Wikipedia, and given that a huge many of cases that arbcom accepts involve online harrassment.. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing how arbitrators, once the elections are over, seem to have so little interest in doing their job and so little time to spend on it. It's also amazing how other people, who are not arbitrators, seem to have a great deal of interest in the ArbCom's doings and plenty of time to worry about how badly they are doing their jobs. I guess it's kind of like volunteering to feed animals at a rescue—everyone thinks it's such a swell thing that you're doing it, except you're not really doing it, because you lose interest and you're busy with other things. The animals who are going hungry, on the other hand, are quite preoccupied by the subject, and have plenty of time to dwell on it. Everyking (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Someone has kindly offered to produce a transcript of the entire speech (I was not looking forward to doing so myself.) Once the transcript is done, I'm awfully tempted to ping every arb who wasn't physically present at the session and ask for their thoughts on either the speech or video as an obvious extension of WP:ADMINACCT. Since most arb cases involve online harrassment in one form or another, I would expect everyone to at least read over the transcript. (do I really need to write a page WP:ARBACCT?) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just watched this. Apparently I was not paying close enough attention to my watchlist, because I'm a bit late responding here. I'm not the kind of person who typically has the time or attention span to watch a 1+ hour video (though I often do read video transcripts, so thanks to all who are trying to provide one). That said, this talk was very much worth the time spent watching it. I wish I had been there to talk to her in person. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion: New Religious Movements

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Due to how closely related the topic areas of several of the existing sanctions are,

  1. Remedy 3 of the Brahma Kumaris case is rescinded;
  2. The 23 October 2014 Motion to the Falun Gong case is rescinded;
  3. The 20 December 2012 Motion the Prem Rawat case is rescinded;
  4. The 1 June 2012 Motion to the Scientology case is rescinded;
  5. Remedy 7 of the Transcendental Meditation movement case is rescinded;
  6. In place of these sanctions, Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to post-1929 New Religious Movements and related people, broadly construed. This includes all of the areas listed in parts 1-5 of this motion. In the case that there is a disagreement over a group's categorization as a New Religious Movement, these sanctions apply to a topic if the high-quality, reliable, independent sources describe it as such;
  7. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
Support
Oppose
  1. Two major flaws in this one, it extends coverage to things that have not been problems, and then picks an arbitrary (and too recent) initial date to define NRM's, as well as a definition that makes admins at AE make content decisions in order to use the sanctions. This is just an all-around bad idea.. Courcelles (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Casts the net too wide for my liking. Yunshui 雲水 08:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. It is impossible to cast this net without it being way too wide. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. . Oppose for being too broad. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  6. I've been thinking about the comments on this for quite a while. There is clearly some support for some consolidation in this topic area, but only for something more nuanced than the simple all New Religious Movements post 1929 here. So my opposition here is for this specific motion, rather than opposition to combining these at all, so if someone is inclined to do the necessary thinking and believes a combination would be worthwhile then please feel free to present your suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  7. Perhaps we should just archive this particular motion. Tend to agree this would oversimplify matters, though the general motive is good. NativeForeigner Talk 11:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  8. Agree,this isn't the right soluion. Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. LFaraone 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (new religious movements)

This was proposed as an alternative to removing the Brahma Kumaris article probation. I added the 1930 cutoff so groups such as The Salvation Army, Quakers, Mormons, Bahá'í Faith, Apostolic Church, Opus Dei and Conservative Judaism are not placed under DS without any problems. I'm still not 100% happy with this setup because Rastafari is covered by this setup. At the same time, I know that this will solve future problems. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I was the one who proposed this, but I'd like to see community comments before deciding whether this was one of my better ideas or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Community comments (new religious movements)

  • Can it be more clearly stated that all the subjects for which individual sanctions are being removed are explicitly included in "post-1929 New Religious Movements"? This is to prevent Wikilawyering on the order of "my faith is not part of the New Religious Movement". BMK (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's a good idea. NE Ent 02:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I will try to do this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @Beyond My Ken and NE Ent: How does this look? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Looks good to me, thanks. BMK (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Great. NE Ent 09:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Not knowing the reason for the cut-off date, this looks at first glance good to me, although I might welcome some clarification whether the sometimes smallish base groups which prompt further spinout groups would be grandfathered in or not. Some of those parent groups might be older than 1929, but, at least sometimes, not much older. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
            • P.S. Basically, because I just like making life harder for you all ;) Speaking unofficially, meaning without citations, it seems to me that there are some topics of a broadly NRM or New Age (which is itself counted as an NRM) type which are perhaps not considered by all individuals as "religious." I am thinking specifically about the recent popularity of the Christ myth theory, and the questioning of the Historicity of Jesus associated with it. So far as I can tell, this is most strongly associated with the more recent agnostic/atheist movement, which probably broadly qualifies in the NRM field, and has peer-reviewed academic journals, just like virtually every major denomination or faith tradition. However, in the broader field of what might be called "academic history," the idea has as little weight as some of the historically nonsupportable beliefs of some older faith traditions. Would "alternative"/fringe beliefs associated primarily with NRMs, and which purport in some cases to fall within the areas of sciences or some other area of academia, but have little support outside of that group, qualify under these sanctions? And, again, sorry for the question, but I think it might apply to the various proposals of von Daniken and other fringey New Age thoughts. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
              • If the sources consider a religion to be a NRM then the DS would cover it. I am not prepared to stretch this so far as to encompass the Historicity of Jesus, which is under its own DS. This is not a junk drawer to throw any tangelty related topic that might spark a controversy.

                The post-1929 date is to keep Opus Dei, a fairly-mainstream Catholic movement from being encompassed. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

                • Understood about the historicity of Jesus, my apologies for the bad example, and thanks for the clarification. But, well, there are a lot groups within the NRM field, like several groups like the Raelians and others who believe that we are bred by aliens, for instance. I am going to assume that the theories of anyone who is a self-declared Raelian would be covered by the sanctions, but would for instance pages in the Category:Ancient astronaut speculation which reflect in substance the fringey beliefs of the Raelians and similar NRMs, and the Raelians are in fact the subject of the only subcat of that specific category, qualify in the "broadly construed" section or not, even if the proponents aren't necessarily explicitly tied to a group that qualifies? John Carter (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In response to @Courcelles:, I have gathered together a page at User:John Carter/Alphabetical list of new religious movements which I hope in time, as I do other things, to add to the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group/Prospectus, and I think the sources used in the first list are at least of sufficient quality and respect that they can serve as at least a partial list of what qualifies as an NRM. There are other such sources, of course, but I have trouble seeing that there will be many new groups, other than those started since those works were published, which will not be covered. There is a question regarding the date, and, personally, I'm not sure I would want to exclude Opus Dei myself (I dunno - I don't think I've ever really dealt with that content) but unless some sort of dividing line is established, then we will have the group of NRMs going back to some established centuries earlier. I suppose one other option might be to allow all NRMs, described as such in the relevant reference sources, qualify for discretionary sanctions by simple motion. That might work. If such were to be done, I think a real case would that Soka Gakkai related content should be considered by motion. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I guess I should add that, much like seems to be true regarding most pseudoscience content, there is an inherent problem with the terms new religious movement, and the closely related term cult, in and of themselves. That particular issue has been raised repeatedly regarding any number of articles. It was, in fact, the reason I spend the rather extensive period of time gathering the user space list above in the first place. There are a few editors who have edited extensively in this broad topic area, including perhaps most notably @Jayen466: and @Cirt:, and I would welcome any input they might have, in addition, of course, to@Dougweller:, who has been at least peripherally involved with several related topics as an editor. John Carter (talk)
  • I should add as a qualifier that Cirt has expressed reservations here regarding whether it would be permissable for him to comment here. I guess I can understand that, but, as one of the editors who has been most involved with this topic, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow the restriction to not apply to comments here, and request clarification if he can edit here according to the restrictions and/or that the restrictions be waived for this discussion. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • And I guess I should add that the Landmark Education Corporation now Landmark Worldwide in its previous incarnations is also described as an NRM, and, on that basis, might be reasonably included in the group of subtopics included in the list above. Maybe others too, I haven't checked actually. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • needs more clarity(as to the parameters of its enforcement)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ozzie10aaaa: Please can you be more specific about what you feel lacks clarity? Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
      • by clarity(quality of coherence) I would echo the opinion it extends coverage to things that have not been problems[17] ... Rastafari [18] would be covered by this motion, but where is the evidence it should be?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
        • The evidence for the scope of this coverage, more or less as per the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:John Carter#FYI, in my conversation with Cirt, which he suggested I link to here. The terms new religious movement and cult are, basically, inherently problematic in and of themselves, much like the word "pseudoscience". There are already two existing ArbCom discretionary sanctions on the broad topics of pseudoscience and alternative medicine. Certainly in the case of the first of those two, the term "pseudoscience" itself can be one of the more controversial aspects of the topic. And, of course, the study of the sociology of many of the NRMs, particularly that from the most active era of the anti-cult movement, is almost always controversial. I don't see any particular difference between the rationality of the existing decisions regarding the fields of pseudoscience and alternative medicine and the rationality of this one. There are, and will be, in all of them some aspects which are no longer at this point at all controversial, but that can and often will change over time, and the existing controversy about the terms themselves will, not surprisingly, possibly extend to many or most of the individual articles or topics involved. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Would groups like 3HO or Dera Sacha Sauda be included in this? Both claim to be "service organizations" but are quite obviously religious movements and sources seem to consider them to be just that. These are just two examples and there are a dozens more from where they come, though a good chunk of them would also be covered by WP:ARBIPA (3HO wouldn't though). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
    • If that an organisation would be considered a NRM if either they self-describe as such or if there are independent reliable sources that call them that. If it is unclear then a consensus of uninvolved editors could be sought, or if that fails then we could consider it at ARCA (assuming that there is a need for discretionary sanctions - if there ins't then it's not worth risking importing drama imho). Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd say that in a lot of these dozens of articles there's a need for DS as most of these topics don't get taken to ANI etc simply because hardly anyone cares enough (but a history of some of the articles in the 3HO group would show the pendulum switch between the two extremes) or on the off chance they do go there, they are left unattended. In such a situation a sledgehammer to crack a nut would appear to be the only solution, therefore my question: could hitherto unattended topics be brought under the purview of this, and it appears that the answer is "yes, if the circumstances require it." Please correct me if I'm wrong. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, as long as they are new religious movements and the standard DS requirements are met (e.g. awareness) then it wouldn't matter whether the article had previously been discussed at ANI or not. This is the same as in existing authorisations, for example Scientology in Brazil does not currently exist, but it will be within the scope of the Scientology authorisation (or the NRM authorisation if this motion passes) the moment it is created. When the American Politics authorisation was passed, articles like Delaware gubernatorial election, 2012 became within the scope even though it doesn't seem like there has been any significant dispute regarding that article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd oppose for now. For some of these there have been motions to put under standard discretionary sanctions replacing an initial remedy before. Why make the process even more convoluted? I don't really see a rationale being given for that.
Also, in general, with the replacing remedy I see more borderline issues. Don't think it a good idea. Would A Course in Miracles fall under it? Would ISIS fall under it? I mean, I like the clean sweep idea, but seems to have more downsides than advantages in this area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually this would make placing discretionary sanctions easier rather than more convoluted - there would not need to be a request to place the topic area under sanctions first as this motions would already have done that. ISIS is not a religious movement (they are a militant group) and so would not fall under these sanctions. A Course in Miracles would seem to be about a book describing a new religious/spiritual philopsophy rather than a movement or organisation and so would not be covered. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
For what little it might be worth, A Course of Miracles is, in and of itself, a book, but it has inspired a large number of other books and speeches and tapes and god knows what all else, and that broader field is, more or less, counted as being an NRM given its unique teachings according to at least some of the relevant reference works. And, in response to Spaceman above, I have seen where 3HO is described in the relevant reference sources as an NRM, but I haven't that I know of seen Dera Sacha Sauda described as such to my knowledge, although I admit I haven't looked completely.
I can and, I guess, do see some basis for saying that not all NRMs are inherently controversial. Some have died out completely, for instance, and at this point are at best subjects of apathy among most, including a lot of academia. Having said that, I tthink that there still remains at least a bit of controversy around most of those groups which were broadly included as targets of the anticult movement. If there were some way to limit the scope of these sanctions to those groups, or similar groups which would have been counted as such if they were active at the time, given similar reception by the general public, that might limit it a little. Having said that, I don't know of any specific sources off the top of my head which could easily identify only those groups called "cults" and those which would have been called that had they been active at the time. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support this. As a case in point, I offer the fresh edit warring by an account on Scientology. Even though France classes the movement as a cult and the very parliamentary report that establishes this classification is given as a source, the same account has deleted both the source and any reference to it three times in just one hour now. I believe it shows how contentious these articles are and why sanctions may be needed. Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, having just looked, after being prompted by the above discussion, I think that only one of the existing sanctions being discussed, regarding Prem Rawat, is not about groups included in the article Governmental lists of cults and sects. The Prem Rawat sanctions, from what I can remember, were basically about BLP matters, which are, probably, already covered by BLP sanctions. Most if not all of the other problematic groups I can think of are included in that list as well. Maybe we could alter the phrasing of the sanctions to specifically cover only those covered on that list? Other groups or sets of articles could presumably be addressed elsewhere, or, perhaps, by specific amendment. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd support the above suggestion. Jeppiz (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I can see adding any groups which have specifically been denied legal recognition as a religion or cult in those countries where such legal recognition is required, or groups which have had in some way specific modern governments declare it is acceptable to call the groups in question cults or similar. The one primary example of the latter that comes to mind is The Local Church, which a US court said at some point might fairly be called a cult. And it might, I suppose, be not unreasonable to maybe specifically include many or most of the articles or subarticles related to recent controversies regarding many groups, as I think at this point, most of the content related to the anticult movement is to be found there. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Having looked over the list of Governmental lists of cults and sects, the ones which have links in the article are as follows: American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property; Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis; Anopsology; Anthroposophy; Aum Shinrikyo; Aumism; Avatar Course; Beili Wang; Born Again Movement; Boston Church of Christ; Branch Davidians; Buddhism in France#Tibetan Buddhist communities; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; Church of Scientology; Cultural Office of Cluny; Dami Mission; Divine Light Mission; Doalnara; Doomsday cults; Eastern Lightning; Eckankar; Énergo-Chromo-Kinèse; European Grouping of Marketing Professionals; Evangelical Missionary Church of Besançon; Falun Gong; Family International; Fiat Lux; Freemasonry; Grail Movement; Guanyin Famen; Insight Seminars; Invitation to Life; ISKCON; Jehovah's Witnesses; Landmark Education; League for Catholic Counter-Reformation; Lectorium Rosicrucianum; Local Church; Multi-level marketing; New Acropolis; New Apostolic Church; New Testament Church (China); Occultism; Opus Dei; Order of the Solar Temple; Osho movement; Raelism; Sahaja Yoga; Sai Baba; Sanban Puren Pai; Satanism; The Shouters; Shri Ram Chandra Mission; Silva Method; Soka Gakkai; South China Church; Spirit Church (China); Sri Chinmoy; Sukyo Mahikari; Transcendental Meditation; True Buddha School; Tudihui; Unification Church; Universal Life; Universal White Brotherhood; Zhushenjiao; various other local and/or neopagan movements;
I can only see a few topics included which I don't know to be at least topic of occasional significant controversy here in that list. Most of those are of groups I've never heard of. The LDS Church, ISKCON, Jehovah's Witnesses, Landmark Education, Unification Church, Raelians, Soka Gakkai, and some of the Rosicrucians are articles/topics which are included there which have had some degree of controversy, including at least once ArbCom controversy, involved. There might be a few articles/topics which aren't controversial, more or less of the who knows or cares variety, but I do think that the majority of those with which I am familiar would benefit significantly and have some of the disruption which has been handled at ANI and elsewhere if not here more easily addressed. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inactivity and communication

Are the clerks authorized to update the active/inactive list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and at each case to reflect unannounced absences per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Unannounced_arbitrator_absence? If not, they should be; and also to update case information to indicate that there is no drafting arbitrator or schedule in case the drafting arbitrator is absent and not communicating. It is understandable and an unavoidable reality that arbitrators have other demands on their time and must sometimes be unexpectedly inactive. The important thing is for realistic information to be communicated to the parties and other users. For obvious reasons, we can't depend on someone who's absent to update the info. For this reason, the clerks should be able to take silence into account when updating case and activity info, rather than waiting for positive information that's not forthcoming. --Amble (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I would ask that they first inquire about it on the clerks-l list, in case the arbitrators have more information on the absence or the case timeline, but yes, I would say that's completely within the clerks' remit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, that's great. Do the clerks know this? Based on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Proposed decision they seem to be waiting for positive instructions. --Amble (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll bring this conversation to their attention the clerks list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable with part of this suggestion, specifically, For this reason, the clerks should be able to take silence into account when updating case and activity info, rather than waiting for positive information that's not forthcoming implies that if clerks don't hear from an arbitrator, we should decide ourselves that they are functionally inactive, even if they are marked as active, and change the arbitration members list along with the list of arbitrators reviewing cases. This would be a subjective decision where there might not even be agreement among clerks and I don't think arbitrators would appreciate us taking that initiative. I would hope that arbitrators would themselves notice when an arbitrator has gone inactive and then inform clerks who could update the members list. Liz Read! Talk! 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Liz. We should be making very few judgement calls, other than those relating to keeping order and decorum on case pages. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Liz/User:L235: That's exactly what I mean to say; otherwise, it's a system of "raise your hand everybody who isn't here." I think the clerks can be trusted to use good sense in confirming someone is really absent. That could include checking with the other arbitrators, but I don't think it should wait on the arbs to take initiative. This doesn't require a subjective judgement, as the arbitration procedures already deem a person inactive after not participating for seven days. That seems like a reasonable rule of thumb. --Amble (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Amble, there are cases, in fact one happened today, where the clerks haven't seen much recent activity from an arbitrator and an email is sent out and they then respond with an explanation. Often. the other arbitrators are aware of situations we don't know anything about and they can fill us in. But the only initiative I can see clerks taking is more frequent checking-in with arbitrators who have been silent for several weeks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Liz, That's fine, of course you should communicate with the arbs. But if they aren't responding, they're not active. And if they are inactive for a good reason, that also doesn't make them active. I'm not asking for someone to jump in and instantly finish everything at the e-cigs arbitration -- but if the case is stalled and nobody has time to work on it, it would be better to say so. From my inexperienced outside perspective this seems like something the clerks can do; two arbs who responded here seem to agree (although they can speak for themselves about what they'd like the clerks to do). --Amble (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Liz brings up a good point, but I see no problem with clerks sending an email to the arbitrators if they notice an arbitrator has been inactive in public spheres for this amount of time. We can always say "no, they've been active on the private list" and close the matter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with GW. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both. --Amble (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The procedure indicates that an arbitrator will be deemed inactive if he or she hasn't posted in "the usual venues" for seven days. I always took the ArbCom-l mailing list as one of those venues. If this is still the interpretation, then there is no way the Clerks can monitor inactivity on their own, as they have no access to that list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I took the "usual venues" to mean public ones because the procedure singles out voting; but that's probably because inactive/active status affects the number of votes needed to pass. --Amble (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

How about, if you don't have the time or the willingness to be active, you resign, or be considered dismissed by the community for not doing the job it elected you to do? And let's consider inactivity on a strictly on-wiki basis. If you can't be bothered to do anything on-wiki, but you're still whispering in smoky backrooms, you are part of the problem, even more so than an arbitrator who does nothing at all. I suspect we'd see a lot more work from these arbitrators who are always so sidelined by real-life demands (but curiously, had a blissfully wide-open schedule at the time of their election) if they knew they'd lose their precious title if they didn't put in some hours to justify it. Everyking (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The unannounced arbitrator absence section of the arbitration procedures says that an arbitrator who has not been active in seven days is deemed inactive. I don't think that a seven day absence is grounds for removal from the Arbitration Committee, particularly when the terms run for two years. I could see the argument if the arbitrator was inactive for an extremely long period of time (significantly more than seven days), but keep in mind that arbitrators are only elected once a year. Is it better to remove an inactive arbitrator and leave an empty spot even if they might come back before the next election? I can see re-evaluating arbitrators at election time if one has been absent for extended periods of time, even if their term is not up. But removing them before then seems fairly pointless. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • There is an active case that has less than half of the 15 seats of ArbCom sitting for the case. As is, the policy and procedures governing ArbCom do not have any structure in place to handle significant loss of ArbCom. There should be such a structure. Two years is a long time. We can't anticipate that all 15 arbitrators will remain active on ArbCom for those two years. Some may need to be away for extended periods they did not anticipate. We've had arbitrators effectively abandon their posts without resigning before. We elect to fill (usually) 15 seats because the work burden on ArbCom is heavy enough to warrant it. If we continue to have large segments of ArbCom away from their posts, the community has a reasonable expectation of having an ArbCom that is capable of fulfilling its duties. As is, an argument can be made this is not happening right now, where a PD is three weeks overdue (case). At a minimum, we should have a structure in place to replace arbitrators who resign before their term is up. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Off the top of my head, I think policy allows Jimbo to call a special election for more arbitrators - I can't imagine he would without being explicitly asked though, and I can't imagine us asking unless we were significantly shorthanded with several months to go before the next election. Realistically a special election would take at least 2 months from being called to having the new people in post, given adequate time for nominations, questions, voting and scrutinising. so it would not be worth it less than 3-4 months before a regular election. Any formal backup structure other than this will probably need an amendment to Arbitration Policy. I think it's worth doing the research to find out exactly what the status quo is, and having an advertised discussion about that with realistic proposals for change (if desirable). Roger Davies is more intimately familiar with arbitration policy than I am though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I was thinking along the lines of having alternates declared as a result of elections. I.e., two or three "spares" that would replace arbitrators who resigned during their terms, perhaps limiting it to resignations occurring before four or six months before the end of their terms. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think one solution is to have more than one arbitrator assigned as a drafter, require two or three for each case. The fact is that real life intrudes into Wikipedia time. People can get sick, move or change jobs. Life happens. Have the practice of having backup arbitrators who can take over a case if an arbitrator needs to step away from it for a while. Given how much work occurs just keeping up with the email list discussion and requests for action that come in, having more than one person responsible for making sure an assigned cases progresses in a timely fashion can really help, I think. Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sadly several cases with "co-drafters" end up being a solo drafting affair. -Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the specific failure mode with co-drafters is the lack of a Directly Responsible Individual (DRI, for lack of a better term than managementspeak) for the drafting role. Ideally, it should be the case DRI's job to coordinate work amongst the co-drafters and ensure the deadlines are met or explicitly slipped and roles reassigned. Like many other bodies of equals, ArbCom often falls into the trap of nobody feeling empowered to take action. Perhaps a "decider" would be helpful. LFaraone 20:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
LFarone, what about the possibility of a trial of having a DRI for each case in January 2016 when there is a newly formed arbitration committee in place? It seems like, in practice, there is usually one drafter who is more involved in responding to talk page questions and such even if there are two or three contributing to the drafting the proposed decision. This would only make sense if the other drafters didn't feel disempowered by having one arbitrator taking the lead. Liz Read! Talk! 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think we'll get the work done faster by getting rid of the people who could do it. I'm just hoping that there's a way to improve communication when things fall behind. --Amble (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom power!

I am very innocent of exactly the limits, if any, to Arbcom power. But I did not think that banning a user by arbitrary motion was part of it. Was I wrong?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC).

You are correct. Arbitrary, summary abusive bans are traditionally part of the administrator's tool set. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Gag orders

IMHO, restrictions shouldn't include an editor's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, the Committee generally always imposes restrictions with the wording as defined by the community (ie WP:TBAN). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Overlap of Sanctions (October 2015)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

To prevent confusion and overlap between existing sanctions,

  1. Remedy 2 of the Bluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case and the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
  2. Remedy 2.1 of the Election case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
  3. Remedies 4 and 5 of the Free Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
  4. Remedy 1 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
  5. Remedy 1.1 of the Tea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
  6. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

Enacted – Miniapolis 13:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Striking my support until we resolve the Vivaldi issue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC) restoring support now the Vivaldi case has been removed from this motion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. LFaraone 23:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. Yunshui 雲水 08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. AGK [•] 23:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  7. Doug Weller (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I agree with all but the last bullet, and that one is enough to oppose this. Courcelles (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @Courcelles: Could you explain your particular objection to it? Also, i'm camped here till my note about Vivaldi is resolved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    @Courcelles: My understanding of the last bullet is that it is simply saying that all current sanctions issued under authorisations we are retiring continue as if the authorisation was still in force - i.e. the sanction is still valid and it may be appealed in the exact same way as it would be if the authorisation was still active. The only other thing it does is note that our retiring the authorisation is not grounds for appeal of an active sanction. What is it you disagree with about this? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf:, my vote made a lot more sense before the Vivaldi bullet was removed. Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    I posted while the Vivaldi bullet was still in place. If you meant "penultimate" rather than "last" (referring to Vivaldi) your vote comment would make sense - if you really do mean last then I am still confused. Thryduulf (talk)
Abstain
Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (overlap of sanctions)

Proposed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Guerillero: Hut is very much correct below as it doesn't cover probation was authorized on... -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Having re-read the results of the Vivaldi case I'm inclined to agree. I think the simplest way to transition from article probation to a more modern remedy here would be to authorise standard discretionary sanctions for all pages related to Jack Hyles, specifically including Preying from the Pulpit, First Baptist Church of Hammond and Hyles-Anderson College? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I removed Vialdi from this list and transferred it to the remove pile. They haven't been used in a decade and 50 edits ago is 2012. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Community comments (overlap of sanctions)

  • I'm not sure that the sanctions in the Vivaldi case are redundant to the BLP ones. Although the articles in question do have material that falls under BLP there is plenty of material that doesn't. For instance Jack Hyles has been dead for well over a decade, it would be hard to argue that BLP applies to most of the article. Hut 8.5 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominations for the 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are open

Nominations for the 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:00, 8 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 17 November (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. Mike V • Talk 00:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on recent Committee actions

I have started a discussion on recent committee actions at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 51#Arbitration Committee marginalising community.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC).

WP:ACDS not explaining what 'discretionary sanctions' are

Is it just me or does WP:ACDS not explain what 'discretionary sanctions' are? The "this page in a nutshell" banner is surprisingly unhelpful - it explains what the discretionary sanctions are supposed to do, but not what they actually are - and the rest of the page is not much help. Banedon (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Bump I still don't understand what they are. Banedon (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, it says "is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles," which is indicative of arbcom's ability to control what's said in arbcom space. What they actually are is authorization for administrations to shortcut some of the dispute resolution steps to deal with disruption in venues that have chronic problems for some reason or another -- typically significant numbers of folks outside the usual Wikipedia editing community who wish to promote a particular viewpoint on something; could range from nationalism, historic animosity, believers in some cause or methodology, political viewpoint, or the like. The meat is in the administrator authorizations NE Ent 01:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Honestly that doesn't sound like much; administrator action against e.g. vandalism or edit warring is already very fast. I don't see the point behind discretionary sanctions. Banedon (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's for behavior that fails below the classic vandalism or edit warring threshold but is still problematic. On a regular article a single admin can not, for example, topic ban an editor -- on an article which falls under DS they can. NE Ent 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem (or one of them) is that a few ArbCom cases, like WP:ARBATC, authorize DS beyond their intended scope (article content disputes), and allow them to be applied to policy discussions. This directly interferes with WP's ability to self-govern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

AC/DS notification system is broken in a different way

I placed a {{subst:alert|a-i}} on a talk page, expecting I would get the standard message to check for past notifications when I clicked save. Not only didn't I get that message, no tag was added to the edit summary. [19] What's up? --NeilN talk to me 21:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think the AC/DS automation isn't working right, you can post at the WP:Edit filter noticeboard. The relevant filter is Special:AbuseFilter/602. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

AUSC mailing list

Should consist of AUSC plus two mailing list admins. The three bolded are not on AUSC according.

AGK, Callanecc, Courcelles, Dougweller, Guerillero, Joe Decker, LFaraone, MBisanz, NativeForeigner, and Roger Davies

Also it should not be necessary for the mailing list admins to be on the list - but that may be a technical limitation of the system.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC).

The entire status of the AUSC is undefined at the moment, as the community member's terms expired, were extended for a month while discussion about the future happened, and then expired again. The problem is that all the discussions (both public and on the committee mailing list - I don't know if there was any discussion internal to the AUSC, I've never been a member) about the future of AUSC have ended in no consensus for anything - including the status quo (ante). We've been rather fortunate that it has not been needed since the end of September, but it will need to be sorted at some point. I suggest that at the moment energies will be better placed sorting out a way forward for the committee - details like this can follow later. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Rich Farmbrough: any arb can subscribe to the AUSC list and can see the discussions there. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That does not seem a good state of affairs as the Arbs are a good percentage of those who are likley to be being audited. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
Updated page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
Thanks for the response. If someone has snuck into the AUSC mailing list it is hardly a detail. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC).
Rich, where did you get the idea those were the members? See[20] - the Arb members (in fact the only members) are myself, Roger Davies, and LFaraone. Plus mailing list Administrators if an AUSC member isn't one, that is a technical requirement. I'm curious also as to how you know who is on the list. Doug Weller (talk • contribs 12:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Archive_17&oldid=1146212813"