Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-02-06/Arbitration report
WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy
The initial Arbcom response was signed by eleven members of the committee. The committee took issue with the WMF statement on doxxing which said: "if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements." Arbcom objected to what it characterized as "an almost unbounded exemption to the outing policy to allow people to post public information on any individual they believe is engaging in undisclosed paid editing." Arbcom called for clarification of the definition of paid editing, noting the possibility of disproportionate consequences for relatively insignificant instances where an editor accepts payment. Finally, ArbCom raised a concern about the "perceived force of authority" of the statement, irrespective of it being tagged as merely an advisory essay.
Several individual arbitrators
expanded on the statement commented in their individual capacities, on the same page linked above.
- For an in-depth look at the impacts undisclosed paid editing can have, see the article by Smallbones in this edition of the Signpost.
- Correction: Of the four arbitrators posting their own statements, three were not signatories to the collective statement. Updated per talk page comment on Feb. 7. PF
- Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence: In April 2016, Mathsci was site un-banned from Wikipedia with the restriction that he "refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed". On 21 January, it was announced that the restriction was rescinded. His interaction bans remain in place.
- Yunshui regained their CheckUser and Oversight permissions following a request from the Committee. They had voluntarily retired in November 2015.