Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:09, 30 December 2015

Archives
Jan 2009 – Feb 2009 Feb 2009 – May 2009 May 2009 – May 2009 May 2009 – Jul 2009 Jul 2009 – Aug 2009 Aug 2009 – Sep 2009 Sep 2009 – Oct 2009 Oct 2009 – Nov 2009 Nov 2009 – Jan 2010 Jan 2010 – Apr 2010 Apr 2010 – Jul 2010 Jul 2010 – Nov 2010 Nov 2010 – Mar 2011 Mar 2011 – May 2011 May 2011 – Nov 2011 Nov 2011 – Feb 2012 Feb 2012 – May 2012 May 2012 – Sep 2012 Sep 2012 – Dec 2012 Dec 2012 – Feb 2013 Mar 2013 – Mar 2013 Mar 2013 – Mar 2013 Mar 2013 – Oct 2013 Oct 2013 – Dec 2013 Dec 2013 – Feb 2014 Feb 2014 - Jun 2014 Jun 2014 - Jan 2015 Jan 2015 - Jun 2015 Jun 2015 - Nov 2015 Oct 2015 - Jan 2016 Jan 2016 - Jan 2016 Jan 2016 - Present Undated archive (auto-created)
Threads older than 10 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.

Oversight permissions removed due to inactivity

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CU tools restored to User:Beeblebrox

Original announcement

Pls correct the link in the announcement. Tnx.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the committee for their attention to these two matters. I'll try not to be sucha pain in the ass for the whole rest of the year... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Why hasn't anyone from ArbCom (or a clerk authorized to act on their behalf) requested the technical implementation of this motion? I posted a notice about the motion on the meta permissions board, but apparently I don't have the necessary authorization and the request has to be officially made by ArbCom. Biblioworm 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Biblioworm: I've emailed the arbs quickly. I'm not sure if clerks are authorized to request it, though, either on meta or by the Committee. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh oh Someones Left Sock (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Meh, Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I emailed Beeblebrox at 9:58 last night UTC telling him about the motion and apologising for being too tired to implement it. I also posted the same to the list. As it is I got the link wrong posting it here! Sorry about the 4 hour delay. Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, why could the stewards not action Biblioworm's request which cross-referenced to Doug's post to the noticeboard? It seems overly bureaucratic to require an Arbitrator to post to meta, when they have already announced the decision here... WJBscribe (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, this bureaucrat is unimpressed ;-) WJBscribe (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not an expanding bureaucrat? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• It's the holiday season. All bureaucrats are expanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• When the steward rejected the initial request, I was thinking everything that WJB stated just above... Biblioworm 16:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just ask Billinghurst. Mike V • Talk 22:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Back when I was both a steward and a clerk, User:Risker told me that it was general procedure that only arbs make the request, due to some past issues where it wasn't clear that the request was made on behalf of the committee. I didn't fulfill enwiki requests, but if I were to, I would probably require the same since if I screwed up, the largest Wikimedia site would now be angry with me... --Rschen7754 18:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Precisely, Rschen7754. Enwiki's arbcom had to ask the stewards to only act on requests from Arbcom because there were users who were putting in requests that were incorrect, incomplete, had not been properly vetted or approved. This also became more appropriate as rules for access were tightened; for example, it used to be acceptable for former checkusers to request tools back at any time, but that "right" of automatic return ended when Arbcom established minimal activity requirements. It appears, from what I can see, that most of those steps are still in place. It seems this has been formalized in the Steward Handbook as well, at least for Oversight, although I note the line is missing for Checkuser. Risker (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, but what's the point of this requirement? If we have a post from an arbitrator stating that "User X is to be made a checkuser per ArbCom vote", why do we need an arbitrator to relay the message the Stewards? Surely any editor can make the request (backed up by a diff to the original announcement by an arbitrator of course) on meta? I'm not seeing any risk, just an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy...
If an Arb posted to this board saying that "User X is to be desysopped per ArbCom vote", I would action the statement without requiring an arbitrator to cross-post to WP:BN to formally ask the bureaucrats to remove the rights. WJBscribe (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that we have seen examples in the past where editors did do that, thinking they were doing it right, and messing it up to the point that stewards were always clarifying with arbcom. In other words, it was more work when it was done by other users than when it was done by arbitrators following all of the steps. It becomes a particular pain to the stewards when there are a lot of them going through (i.e., at the end of each year); back in the day, others kept posting requests without the necessary information, without Arbcom even approving the appointments in some cases. Ensuring that privacy-related tools are only made accessible through controlled mechanisms is a feature, not a bug. Risker (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Part if it is also that many stewards from enwiki refrain from handling enwiki requests; other stewards do who are not as familiar with our policies. --Rschen7754 18:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It is (long held) policy. ArbCom tells stewards to whom and when we are to allocate CU and Oversight tools. Simplicity and clarity are very important when handling out these highly restricted tools. If enWP wishes to put forward a proposal to have the policy amended, then please go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Do recent topic bans apply to this page?

A rather curious situation is arising over at SageRad's talk page which may affect myself and others with topic bans recently issued by ArbCom. It has been stated that it is an actionable offence for those recently issued with a GMO-ban to be contributing to this ArbCom Noticeboard page to discuss the process leading to the remedies. So, why were banned editors issued with an invitation to discuss this here? If they make any comment here, they are apparently in breach of their ban. My own case is even more complex. My ban was not for all GMOs, but at least one editor has argued this still means I should not edit the Genetically modified organism article. I accepted that, but now realise that because this noticeboard has the same title, I might be accused of violating my topic ban for even posting this message.

I totally accept that it is not right for banned editors to be making new arguments or statements about the subject matter of a topic ban, but at the moment, it appears those with a ban cannot even comment about the talk pages which resulted in their ban. For example, it appears that if I was to write, "The editing atmosphere at insert talk page of article I am banned from was extremely combative", I would be in breach of my topic ban. What then is the point of this page for those who have been most seriously affected by Arbcom's decision.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban means to leave the area of the subject, altogether, and not to shout from the sidelines. There are a few exceptions to that, such as appealing the ban or requesting good-faith clarifications about its scope (as you're doing), but it does mean the banned editor must refrain from all general discussion of the topic and topic area on any page on Wikipedia, and must refrain from editing any article or portion of any article that covers the banned topic. If it's possible for you to discuss the case or other administrative processes without engaging in discussion of the topic, you remain free to do that, but just be sure not to cross that line. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Section break

Are you telling me to get out of here and that I can't speak here in dissection and autopsy of the recently deceased case in which you spoke so badly and insinuated such stuff against me? SageRad (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: I wasn't talking to you at all, I was answering a question. You are not banned from discussing the case, or me in particular. You are banned from discussing the subjects of your topic ban on any page on Wikipedia, this one included. If you can discuss the case without going directly into those topics, your ban doesn't forbid that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Another question, is Agent Orange covered by this topic ban? Why or why not? Is it an agricultural chemical? Are there any farms that use it? Is it used in agriculture? I'd like to know a opinions on that, with reasoning. Silencing a person is a serious thing you know. It's not a light thing to do. Speaking badly of someone is also a serious thing. Why did anything ever have to go here? Why do some people think they can judge others and silence them? How can people do that without remorse or great care? SageRad (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer to that as well. FWIW, I would not include Agent Orange or dioxins, but would probably include the two component herbicides. That may be a stupid idea but I think the boundary has to be drawn somewhere that does not drag in all environmental concerns. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

E/C@SageRad: I have asked a very specific question in this thread. It is possible that by simply posting here, you and I are inadvertently breaking our topic ban. Please could I respectfully ask you to move your posting above to a separate section. You raise good points, but I feel they may be distracting to the specific and direct question I have asked. Thanks. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I just added a section break. I hope that solves it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Participating in AE threads or any other discussion within the bounds of your topic ban will lead to a block --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

My apolologies - I thought that because I was not discussing the page or the content, I was able to comment. I will endeavour to interpret the topic ban more broadly in the future.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Some kindly admin or Arb may want to do some clarifying for Wuerzele as well because they've already stepped in it [1], [2] and likely [3] pending a clarification on Agent Orange. Capeo (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate place for that discussion would be WP:AE. I don't know enough about the scope of the area to answer that question nor would a single Arbitrator in my view. I think those questions are best left to at least a group. It would be better as a "am I wrong for assuming it's not in the scope of the ban" rather than someone else coming in with "this is in the scope and is a violation". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman Arbitration case suspended

Original announcement

• OK - so what are the rules here? Is evidence closed? Is PD closed? Will people be allowed to present evidence on Jan 2? Will people be allowed to post to PD? Will the talk pages be open? — Ched :  ?  03:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Due to the unusual circumstances and continual changes in this case - I would like to request a motion that once the case is reinstated on January 2nd, there be allowed further evidence to be submitted. — Ched :  ?  03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• All case pages will be closed until the case is reopened on January 2. When the case is reopened, the case pages for the remaining phases of the case (including talk pages) will be reopened. Those who are not arbitrators or clerks will not be able to edit the proposed decision (as per usual). I think it would make sense to allow a brief period of evidence once the case is reopened, but I will discuss with my colleagues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• It is my intent that there be time for evidence before proceeding to workshop, though likely not more than 4-5 days, as there has already been a decent amount of time to present evidence. Courcelles (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Including a line like
  Kevin Gorman-date-suspended=xxx
  in the Casenav/data file would be great. Pldx1 (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Header dates say "Workshop closes 31 December 2015 • Proposed decision to be posted 3 January 2016"; of course, the header dates are more what you call "guidelines" than actual rules. NE Ent 12:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll change those to account for the suspension when I'm on a computer next and not a tablet. Courcelles (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Nadirali

Original announcement

What's the case in question? Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan perhaps? Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The restriction came from an appeal of a block/ban and is not connected to any arbcom case --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

So if it's not connected to any Arbcom case, why is Arbcom making a motion about it, and why does it get announced here? Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee/Archives/2014#User:Nadirali_unblocked. BASC unblocking with terms, now rescinded. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rich Farmbrough case amended

Original announcement

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

2016 Arbitration Committee

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case closed

Original announcement

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

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

Generic interaction ban wording

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

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

Soap desysopped and banned

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I do have a few questions, actually:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Well perhaps there isn't a rouge admin cabal after all? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• And there goes 2 months in a row with a net increase in the number of Admins... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• All I will say is that I saw it coming and that I believe he needs to take a break from IRC in general. No further comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• This news truly saddens me. I have been present and involved in some recent issues with Soap, but I never expected this result; frankly, I think it might be a bit drastic, but that isn't my call, and I may be missing vital information. A loss of a great editor and admin, I will say that. What a shame. MJ94 (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  Stop, please, with the crocodile tears. You tried to compromise my admin account as soon as I went "weak". Get out of Wikipedia now. IStandwhenIP (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I for one welcome this new policing of the IRC channels. The perception that wikipedia IRC chans are 'not wikipedia' and that anything there can slide is what led to the throatpunching culture of IRC. Of course this just means now that all the people who really dont want their IRC activities held against them will migrate to a new Super Sekret channel they can control. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• I find this to be interesting. I don't doubt that Soap has engaged in inappropriate off-wiki behaviour and likely does need a break from the project, but it seems as though this decision was made with an unseemly haste. Feel free to take my sentiments with a grain of salt, as I'm obviously not privy to all of the details. I'm just speaking from an outsider's perspective. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
•  ?? The off wiki interactions I've had with Soap were strictly positive. I never expected to see this.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• In this instance, there's not a great deal more that can be said. I can confirm that the issue was serious and ongoing, that the Committee did contact Soap prior to the decision being undertaken, and that I fully believe it to have been the appropriate response. We will take action regarding off-wiki harassment if we can conclusively determine that the off-wiki account is operated by the same individual as one on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to User:DoRD

Original announcement