Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Level II desysop of Yngvadottir

Original announcement

Thank you for the prompt action. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed by Callanecc. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed by Callanecc. Please do not modify it.
Yes! RO(talk) 22:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Whatever the merits of this very rapid action, shouting "yes!" à la Marv Albert is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Repellent bloody gravedancing. Irondome (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yngvadottir took an action that was completely correct. The block was totally unjustified and it is Kirill who should be desysopped (and not for this alone, I must say). Yngvadottir should be commended for trying to remedy senseless administrative abuse. Everyking (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyking, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use_of_external_websites.2C_block.2Funblock_of_Eric_Corbett would be the more appropriate forum for presenting your opinion on this to the committee. NE Ent 00:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this the place to discuss ArbCom decisions? The last thing I want to do is involve myself on the case page in even the most marginal way. I am just making the point that the decision was wrong. Everyking (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The decision to block may well be debatable, but it was transparent and well-explained as to why it was a violation in the face of multiple previous blocks. The comments were harmless, but could reasonably be considered a violation IMO. Perhaps it went against the spirit of the topic ban, and perhaps it was draconian, but regardless you can't really call this "abuse" and there was no pressing need not to follow process on this, even if the block should have been overturned upon review. More importantly however, any admin worth their salt knows you can't overturn AE blocks. You just can't. Blocking policy is as clear as it could possibly be about this and it is also clear that doing so may result in a desysop. This admin knew that, acknowledged that, and did so anyway. We're held to a higher standard than that and frankly Yngvadottir's actions were childish and inappropriate for someone entrusted to serve the project and the community, not their own sense of justice. Swarm ♠ 02:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it was Kirill who acted wrongly in imposing an abusive and completely ridiculous block. It isn't even "debatable", it was just blatantly wrong. When is the ArbCom going to desysop him? Everyking (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" is a subjective label applied to basically all of Eric's blocks by him and his supporters. But "abusive" is not. How, specifically, was this an abuse of the tools? Swarm ♠ 03:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric's comments could indeed "reasonably be considered a violation" of the letter of their restrictions. However that is still no reason that the Damoclean penalties must be enforced. An admin with better judgement (as many did) would ignore them and not leap on the ever-so-satisfying opportunity to do some Serious Admin Bizniz, especially on the tasty, tasty target of Eric (you can't be a Real Admin until you've blocked Eric).

Talk:Jimbo has regularly been used as a forum where even the project-banned are allowed to speak without redress. I don't believe Arbcom would ever have written a restriction on Eric that stated he could not respond to an obvious newspaper mistake, which was already under discussion, with some entirely reasonable responses. It is not good admin judgement to respond to that with a block, even if there was an opportunity to do so.

As to the aspect, "Atlantic wrote a piece criticising WP's attitude to women, so their response was to expel one of the women admins" - work that one out for yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've posted a question about this action to the arbitrators on the pending case request page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, can we please stop using the jargon of "Level II" and instead explain what's being meant? I dimly remember what's meant, thanks to a previous discussion regarding a desysop, but I'm not clear on it, and most people won't know at all. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this. My recollection was (obviously incorrectly) that Level II meant the account had been compromised. Jenks24 (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep kicking women off the project, especially at a time when we need more admins. It looks amazing. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Isn't it amazing how quickly the Arbcom can act when its own pomposity is pricked. Giano (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Every admin knows that reversing an arbcom block out of process will get you desysoped. It is right up there with unblocking yourself. If an admin does not want an arbcom decision enforced then they can use their words, not their tools, to dispute it. This desysop was the only outcome, no point complaining about it. HighInBC 17:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with HighInBC here. Having said that, there might be some sort of reason for creating a way recognized by policy to allow someone attempt an appeal of a block for someone else, even without the blocked party's specific request for such. I can and I guess do see some way in which cases with many of the elements of this one could potentially lead to some sort of legal action against the site and/or foundation and/or editors, and I think we would be better off having some sort of idea how to deal with that if such a similar situation arises again. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough - perhaps. It still looks like Malleus/Eric was blocked over a technicality rather than over disruptiveness, and Yngvadottir thought it was a miscarriage of justice and so unblocked. That seems worthy of discussion in lieu of knee-jerk desysopping. As I said before, I'm not much about gender issues, but I can't help but wonder if a male admin would have been treated thus. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kafka Liz: I think the last time this happenend was Trusilver (2010) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kafka Liz: Why are you wondering if the gender was an issue? It has been posted for all too see that any admin who reverses an arbcom block will be summarily desysoped so why are you wondering what would have happened to a male admin? The answer is the exact same thing. That sort of comment really undermines other legitimate concerns about gender inequality. To even suggest that gender had anything to do with it is absurd. HighInBC 22:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at the tone and the edit summary in your reply and then try saying again that "To even suggest that gender had anything to do with it is absurd". And then think about gender issues, think seriously. She made a comment; she shared her opinion. How dare she? Victoria (tk) 22:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Any gender is capable of making absurd statements. The idea that the desysop had anything to do with the gender of the person desysoped is absurd and I stand by that statement. HighInBC 02:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and also noting HighInBC's usual process bound, blind "rules is rules", high handed, and dismissive attitude. Everykings' comments in the section below about right and wrong seem a better and more considered approach to me. It's hardly surprising that people are upset to see the ruling classes behave like this. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that the block was a blatant and egregious misuse of the tools, the ArbCom ought to have enough sense not to punish someone for overturning it, even if under ordinary circumstances we would expect process to be followed. The ArbCom was not required to desysop Yngvadottir; it simply chose to do so. Everyking (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am certain that anyone who has read Yngvadottir's retirement statement at the top of her talk page in full (as I have) will understand that she has given up on Wikipedia and I suspect she unblocked Eric because the button was available, and she was not bothered about losing the tools. As can be demonstrated by her lack of a response. I would recommend all read that retirement statement carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Everyking: I asked you above how specifically this was a misuse of the tools and I can't help but notice you haven't explained, and yet you are continuing to repeat the accusation. I'm wondering how, if you're unable or unwilling to justify a serious accusation, you expect that to not be taken as a violation of WP:NPA? Swarm ♠ 04:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think you were seriously wondering about it. Obviously blocking someone without a valid reason—for example, to retaliate against that person for having the temerity to speak in his own defense in the context of serious claims about him—is abusive. Everyking (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I figured I was clear enough in my seriousness. He wasn't blocked as retaliation for speaking in his own defense. He was blocked for clearly speaking about a topic he was prohibited from speaking about. For example, I can't see how this diff[1] is a direct response to any claims about him. It seems like a pretty clear statement about a perceived lack of a gender gap. Is this normally a big deal? Of course not. Is he prohibited from discussing that topic? Uh, yes. He is, specifically. Was the block necessary? Perhaps not. Was it abusive, according to the relevant policy that I've linked to multiple times? If so, how? Relative to the actual policy, not your hyperbolic ranting. Swarm ♠ 04:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

He made those comments in the context of the very same discussion. You're distinguishing between the contents of each specific edit made during a single discussion that he clearly had a very good and pressing reason to be involved in? That seems like splitting hairs. What if he made one long comment, instead of a few short ones, and he included straightforward self-defense comments alongside gender gap comments? Everyking (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I did read most, though not all, of it, but it was from March. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Desysopping

In basic terms from - Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions

Level 1 - Emergency such as compromised account
Level 2 - Arbitration request - Result of case, or motion in most instances. Amortias (T)(C) 03:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Or to quote the actual rules, "Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place". What potential harm is being prevented here? Does the committee feel that Yngvadottir is likely to go on a rampage if left unrestrained? ‑ iridescent 10:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably the harm to ArbCom's remit, or maybe its reputation, that any admin could unilaterally undo an ArbCom enforcement / sanction and not be admonished. This just looks bad on the whole concept of ArbCom. It's a view that has progressively become the norm, that ArbCom has moved away from that group of veteran editors who has been elected to adjudicate the disputes that community can't handle to this supreme entity that sends lightning bolts on those below. This isn't so much about any one editor so much as it is about the binary-ness of ArbCom. There is no room for a slap on the wrist, only the heavy end of the hammer. Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Irondome (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

See also this indef block (unrelated except as an arbcom action), at User_talk:Tryptofish#Statement, which I happened to witness through a neuroscience edit-conflict. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm guessing here, but I imagine there was some private communication between ArbCom and Yngvadottir, and that private communication was unsatisfactory to ArbCom. I can't imagine that promptness taking place without this occurring. Now the contents of any private communication, and even if some private communication took place, will probably never be known outside of Yngvadottir and ArbCom. So I think it is difficult to assess how necessary the desysopping was from an outside point of view.

Salvio has hinted on the case page that a return of adminship might be possible if some arrangement with ArbCom was forthcoming. "If Yngvadottir so desires, they can ask us to reconsider our decision". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think your guess is too generous, and there probably was no communication, especially considering how hastily it was done. I was desysopped by the ArbCom in 2006 for an even more absurd reason, and nobody tried to talk to me about it beforehand—it was just a bolt from the blue. I noticed my magic buttons were gone, and then I saw a message pop up on my talk page, which was essentially "Surprise! You're desysopped!" Obviously that was long ago, but the ArbCom seems to have changed very little over the years. Of course, the ArbCom could enlighten us and let us know if they tried to reach an understanding with Yngvadottir beforehand, if they saw fit to explain anything to us at all. Everyking (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well what is known is that Salvio e-mailed Yngvadottir [2]. Now what I think is most probable is that an e-mail exchange took place. But I don't know whether or not it did, but just seems to all make more sense if this was the case. To me at least. But I suppose it is possible that an e-mail was sent, but Salvio then changed his mind that communication was necessary and then proceeded anyway.

I think it is very unlikely ArbCom will comment on this matter, but the question could be asked. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I sent Yngvadottir an e-mail, pointing out the problem (the out-of-process unblock) and requesting her to explain her actions to arbcom. She did, but we didn't find her explanation convincing and, so, proceeded to vote on the desysop. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What sort of explanation would have been convincing? Everyking (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

For instance, that the blocking admin had said somewhere that he was fine with another administrator modifying the block, I might even have accepted an "I didn't know it was not allowed" with a guarantee that she would not do that again (had she actually been unaware of the rules); instead, we basically received a longer version of [t]he Arbitration Committee's sanction muzzling Eric has proven itself unfair and counterproductive to the encyclopedia (which she said here), which is something you may agree with, but it's also not her decision to make and is pretty much the sort of admin action the provisions against unilateral modifications in WP:ACDS prohibit. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's say an admin makes a block under cover of AE enforcement that isn't really AE enforcement at all, just abuse. A well-meaning admin then unblocks the innocent user without going through process first. What should be done? Everyking (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a very hypothetical scenario and is something which, to my knowledge, has never happened before. The salient point, however, is that this case is nothing like the one you describe: this was not a purely abusive block. You and others think that Kiril misused his discretion and, who knows, had Eric appealed, the community or even ArbCom may even have lifted the block, but that's not what happened. What happened is that an administrator lifted an AE block which was not abusive on its face simply because she disagreed with it. It's been repeated over and over again that reversing arbitration enforcement actions out of process leads to sanctions and so it did. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So, the real question at stake isn't about process and rules; if it were, then you would have just said "automatic desysop, no exceptions". Therefore, it's really about whether the block was abusive or not. And if it actually was abusive (you know, hypothetically), then it's fair to say the ArbCom made the wrong decision here. Right? Everyking (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. I don't like making absolute statements like "automatic desysop, no exceptions", because one can't foresee everything which may possibly occur in future. What I can say is that I have never seen an AE block so abusive that the only acceptable course of action would be an immediate and unilateral unblock without even an attempt at discussion with the blocking admin. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you have. Well, obviously that would never be the only acceptable course of action, but in this case it certainly was an acceptable course of action. Will you agree that if the block was blatantly malicious, an out-of-process unblock would be acceptable? Everyking (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: As an aside Salvio, I don't like this practice. When ArbCom was conducting cases involving me I got a flurry of personal emails from Arbs. There was no way of knowing if the Arb was writing on behalf of the Committee, or if the requested information was being shared with the rest of the Committee. When I later brought up a matter mentioned in one email, ArbCom denied ever having said any such thing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

During the case involving you, I was not on arbcom, so I have to admit I don't really know what happened. From what I've seen, nowadays we generally tend to specify when we are speaking only as individuals and not on behalf of arbcom; furthermore, when acting as arbitrators (even only in our personal capacity), we generally cc the mailing list (I believe we always do that). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've avoided comment thus far because ... well WP:IDONTLIKEIT! ... but nearly retired Yngvadottir made a knowing choice " I am fully aware that this will probably trigger my desysoping. I believe those who supported my RfA did so because they judged I would use the tools for the benefit of the project. This is my implementing that judgement." to burn her admin bit making the unblock, so criticizing the committee for doing the obvious and expected isn't reasonable. NE Ent 22:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree with NE Ent here. Yngvadottir, a nearly retired admin, made a decision she thought was right, knowing that it would result in a pretty much automatic desysop per multiple previous decisions. Although I suspect NE Ent and I disagree on a lot of other points Yngva made her choice knowing what it would result in, and I do think there is something to respect in that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This bothered me earlier, again because of the tone. Nearly retired = what? Not important? Not someone who counts? Someone we can toss away while the rest of chat about stuff that's just another episode in much drama that's not worth speaking of? She might have returned. Being nearly retired does not mitigate the work she's already done. Now? Almost certainly, she won't come back. And that's very sad. It's in fact the saddest part of this episode. Victoria (tk) 23:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Have you read her retirement message posted months ago? It's pretty clear that she was pretty permanently done with Wikipedia, and chose to use her admin tools to make a point, knowing what it would result in by arbcom policy. She's not by any means banned, and she could run (and quite potentially win) at RFA again, but she understood what she was going, and understood what the outcome would be. As I said, there's certainly something to respect in that (and I've considered taking similar actions that would result in my desysop to fix a problem I thought needing fixing,) but she did post a long retirement message many moons ago, knew what her actions would result in, isn't blocked, and still has the opportunity to regain her tools if she wants them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• This line of reasoning seems pretty shabby to me. If she did the right thing, she should not have been desysopped; if she did the wrong thing, she should have been. What she expected to happen seems irrelevant. It is not a defense of wrongful punishment to say that the victim knew in advance that she would be wrongfully punished, merely a sad statement about a broken system. Everyking (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it really a good thing if admins ignore basic process? It's one of the brightest lines in the ruleset, even the AE block template warns of desysopping. I'm not saying the initial block was a great one, but to ignore clearly defined unblocking procedure is in my book disruptive. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
    • In general, no, but allowances must be made for special circumstances. The ArbCom was perfectly free to say that the unblock was acceptable under the circumstances, or simply ignore it and let it pass without comment. Instead, they opted to punish someone for doing the right thing. Everyking (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Well I believe to unblock, in that manner, to be disruptive. And ArbCom have every right to desyop in these circumstances. And if unsatisfatory communication is received from the offending admin then a desysop is the only logical choice. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It wasn't disruptive; it just reversed a bad decision and allowed one of our editors to edit again, restoring the normal state of affairs. Furthermore, I'm not interested in what the ArbCom has "a right" to do; I'm interested in what they are right to do. Everyking (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Well if that's the case why not do it by the book? Open a AE, AN or ARCA thread? There was absolutely nothing to stop her from doings so. Instead she chose a path that would lead to considerable controversy. For no good reason. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
            • That would have been ideal, but no one in this situation has behaved ideally. Should we desysop an admin for reversing an abusive action, but failing to take certain procedural steps? Everyking (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
          • @Everyking: Where does WP:Blocking policy allow for the unilateral reversion of AE blocks in cases of "bad decisions"? It seems exceedingly clear in prohibiting such unblocks. We get it, you disagree with the block. But if you honestly support flaunting policy and can't understand why that would result in a desysop, you're probably not fit to be an admin either. Swarm ♠ 04:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
            • You believe that reversing an AE block out of process is so heinous an offense that it should necessarily lead to desysopping, absolutely regardless of circumstances? If so, how far do you go with this logic? Do you suppose if the ArbCom itself decided it would not desysop someone who did that, it would be committing an unpardonable sin? Everyking (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
              • No, it's not a matter of my personal beliefs at all actually. It's policy. We're allowed discretion. That doesn't mean we're not still governed by site policies. This is not something that is subject to our individual whims or "discretion" at all. Unilateral AE unblocks are expressly prohibited by policy. Administrators maintain a trust-based privilege, are not dictators and are bound by rules and community standards, just like every other contributor. Openly going against project policy makes an admin subject to the loss of their privileges. This is not a gray area. The rules are clear. Yes, IAR is always a thing if necessary, but clearly ArbCom did not see this as the abusive act warranting an exemption that you're asserting it is. Swarm ♠ 04:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
                • I'm aware of the policy, but you're avoiding the point. It is the ArbCom's policy, and it is the ArbCom that decides how to apply, interpret and enforce it. It is also patently obvious that Kirill made an abusive block and that Yngvadottir's unblock was appropriate under the circumstances, that she did the right thing, even though she technically broke a rule while doing so. The screeching of "policy, policy, policy" ignores the fact that the ArbCom actually had complete freedom in deciding how to deal with this situation. My personal preference: desysop Kirill and commend Yngvadottir, because this was plain abuse and we have to take a strong stand against it. But there are lots of options: admonish Kirill, acknowledge that Yngvadottir's unblock was good in principle, but admonish her for not following the formal process; admonish all parties but apply no penalties; simply decline to get involved in the whole mess; etc. Instead of any of those sensible routes, the ArbCom decided to punish the person who did the right thing, and that is the problem here. Everyking (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • It is also patently obvious that Yngvadottir's unblock was highly inappropriate, that she knew it was wrong, but did it solely to make a point and that she expected to be summarily desysopped for it. What is the word for people who do things they know to be wrong? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • It isn't ArbCom's policy, it's community policy, but obviously ArbCom is going to interpret and enforce it when appropriate. Doug Weller (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • Where did you get that idea from? Was it not created by ArbCom fiat? The Enforcement page clearly states that it was. Everyking (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
                    • "More honor'd in the breach than the observance," (Hamlet / Shakespeare). NE Ent 10:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
                      • "Do you think ’tis a problem? Surely not!" (William Shakespeare's Tragedy of the Sith's Revenge: Star Wars Part the Third - no, I'm not making this up). Seriously, I'm not sure about 'more', but I have learned to always check what policy says for myself. I suspect that most of us (speaking about the community here) sometimes think we know what policy says when we don't. Doug Weller (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is her goodbye statement: User_talk:Yngvadottir#Goodbye_statement. She made a conscience choice to engage in civil disobedience expecting to be desysopped -- we can acknowledge her choice as a woman and call her wiki-hero, or we can condescendingly say "oooh, they're picking on a girl" and consider her a wiki-victim. I choose the former; I actually consider it more respectful. NE Ent 23:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of righteous civil disobedience, what about the people she was disobeying and guys with the billy clubs? If you want to characterize it as an act of heroic resistance, OK, but in that case we need to address why someone had be a hero, and why they got beat down for it. Everyking (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• • • Is it really a good thing for sitting Arbcom members to go to MSM to further publicise a frankly sectarian WP political issue? Knowing that this would add further tension to an already fraught subject? Is it right that EC was mentioned at all in this poorly written piece? Is it right that there is a link to this whole sorry mess on the GGTF, almost as if advertising an ongoing community rift? Is it right that EC was mentioned on Jimmy Wales's T/P in such a goading and provocative way? Is it right that EC was punished in such a draconian way for merely mildly defending his position? Is it right that a highly respected female admin was stripped of the bit for an action which reflected her own deep unease of the whole scenario? Mere procedural arguments defending blocks, Desyops etc, against such a deeply problematic chain of events appear disingenuous. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Irondome (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I thought that was her goodbye statement, but she wrote it 11 March 2015, Wednesday (7 months, 16 days ago) but after a few weeks break continued to edit until she was desysopped. I'm torn because I think she could have achieved the same thing through ordinary processes. Wild idea, but I wonder if the community would support a temporary desysop with the mop automatically restored after a given time? Doug Weller (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
        • That option might have saved another good Admin/editor who was desysopped recently - in, I believe, far too much haste. I hate waking up to fait accomplis. Doug Weller (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
          • No. The solution is de-admin and reverse admin action (reverse is important because it takes away most incentive to do the out-of-process admin action, in the first place - you thereby save future admins from this) - then you go about discussing with the ex- (and possibly future) Admin, if they approach you and want to work within the processes that the Pedia has. (The other admin you are thinking of is different, as he was dysysopped for comments - that admin also could approach the ctte about those but there was no admin action to reverse). The idea for not doing these things is that being an admin and a block (many people sit out a block or just live through it until reversed-in-process) is so super-all-important, but they are not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• I watchlist the Bureaucrats' noticeboard from my previous work on it and I saw "level II desysop" in a header. I thought to myself "What happened with Eric Corbett now?" and, not to much surprise, I find this. I don't understand this website sometimes, and it's probably why I don't participate much anymore. You all try to find solutions to problems with the processes and procedures (and even the motions you've created to address them) when they are not problematic. It's the users and their behavior you need to address. If you're too afraid to pull the trigger then this will happen again and again. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding overlap of sanctions

Original discussion

Level I Desysop of Seemingly Compromised Accounts

Original announcement

Was there any investigation into who compromised the accounts? It was clearly someone experienced with Wikipedia doing it to make a point. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Technically the account was compromised at the point the user's passwords were leaked, regardless of when/if anyone logged into them. There is a good argument that someone using their own date of birth as their password has never had a secure account... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify then, the intent of my original question was "Was there any investigation into who logged into the accounts and posted at BN?" Jenks24 (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? It was perhaps overly dramatic - they could just have emailed ArbCom with the details of the two accounts & their passwords - but basically they did us a favour. There is precedent for the approach taken ([3], [4] - I think Gmaxwell provided the "white hat hacker" services on that occasion). WJBscribe (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Can of worms to be honest. Routinely when comprised accounts are accessed by third parties, the user wont be told who/where for a combination of privacy and security reasons. If my online banking account was accessed from overseas, the bank would not tell me who/where did it. The police would be able to request that but would be highly unlikely to provide me with the detail either. This does raise the interesting question of Salvidrim however, once he has regained access he has the advanced permissions to do his own sleuthing. Personally I favour the pro-active approach where any access from an unknown IP/range prompts an email verification before access is granted. Computer games have been using it for years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's incorrect. I don't have Checkuser permissions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah I thought you had? Congrats on recovery. May I suggest adding more digits and a case-sensitive letter or two next time ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only in death (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it's the first thing I did. And I'm an SPI Clerk, but not CU (at least not yet in any case). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, where would be the appropriate place to propose changes to WMF's security arrangements anyway? Meta? Only in death does duty end (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Phabricator:T94774, marked resolved today, allows for different groups of users to have different minimum password policies with the new default for "privileged" accounts being a minimum of 8 bytes (8 CJK characters is equivalent to a short sentence in ascii for example, and not all scripts have the concept of upper and lower case). My understanding is that we are in a transition period - checkusers, stewards and some other groups already cannot set shorter passwords than this and anyone in such groups is prompted to change their password every time they log in. At some point (I don't know when) these people will be unable to log in if they have not changed their password. I believe that this will be rolled out to all sysops and higher account holders at some point, but I don't know when. Meta is indeed probably the place to ask/discuss. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Late support --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

CU has been done (not by me), nothing found to link to any other accounts. Doug Weller (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia needs support for two factor authentication, and its use should be required for admins and other privileged users. (or perhaps if you log in without the 2 factor auth, you are dynamically removed from the privileged groups for the duration of that session, but that may be overly complicated) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Support for 2fa would certainly be welcome, but implementing requires changes to the global login code (see phabricator:T107605). It is not possible however to require two-factor authorisation across the board as not every user has access to the required two capable devices, particularly (but not exclusively) users in the global south where we are already underrepresented. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would respectively disagree. There are multiple forms of 2FA that range from IP based locking (used for example by multiple online games and Steam where a code is sent to a registered email account when a different IP is detected) to independent isolated cryptocard. In between there are the various mobile authentication strategies ranging from various RSA SecurID like apps (Google Authenticator et al, used by a wide variety of services with OTS server side plugins) to SMS based codes (used by Paypal for instance). For a first order, it is probably reasonable that anyone who has a WP account has access to email, so at least that method should work for everyone. Google Authenticator should work for anyone that has a mobile device or their own computer (Android VMs are widely available). I would therefore argue that 2FA is a perfectly viable requirement for any admin or above account (and certainly should be required for say CU access) and would not disadvantage any particular demographic. Aaronspink (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree but you should probably voice this to the foundation. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

"Identifies another IP": I've been on 6 IPs today so far, and it's only that small a number because I've been too busy to use my phone much. Anything that involves technology is a no-go, as well; many people who would meet the "2FA" standard don't have access to it, either because of cost or because of tech embargoes to certain large parts of the world. SMS is also an expensive proposition if the user lives in a country where it is normal to pay for every incoming SMS as well as any outgoing ones. The way to assess the usability of any 2FA process is that it is incredibly simple and cost-free, because if it is at all difficult or expensive for people, they'll just stay logged in - a far greater security risk. It's all rather a moot discussion right now though, because 2FA does not work with SUL and it will take some major rewriting of the underlying code to change that. The WMF spends very little time and money on that kind of "engineering" - it's not even on their radar now - and it would be a pretty expensive rewrite. There's very little that an admin account can do that justifies the cost. Risker (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

2FA does not require special hardware. It simply requires a second means of identification. Any software based public/private key system will work. It must be optional however. While I agree it needs to be cost free it does not need to be incredibly simple, just usably simple. After all it is an advanced feature for advanced protection. I have implemented such systems myself, it is not the tricky. I am sure it would require less developer hours than that awful FLOW. HighInBC 03:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the committee isn't tasked with making policy, this isn't the best venue for discussion. If we collectively want to make a change to login requirements, an RFC should be held and publicized via the usual methods. NE Ent 03:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim!

I understand that Salvidrim! is now back in control of his account - and that this has been confirmed to ArbCom & a steward such that his account has now been globally unlocked. Please could ArbCom confirm that the local rights I removed this morning can now be restored? Many thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I am in control and it has been confirmed to the Stewards. I've also e-mailed ArbCom asking if they need anything else from me before greenlighting the resysopping. I've chatted with DQ and might have a call with her tonight to verbally confirm a few things. Please wait for the okay from ArbCom before resysopping, I wouldn't want to step on any toes because I pushed for out-of-process stuff. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Restored per ArbCom motion. WJBscribe (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Security review RfC

Having discussed the matter with a member of the WMF Security team, I've put some options together on Wikipedia:Security review RfC. Please can interested parties go there and have a look? Worm^TT(talk) 10:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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 00:10, 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).

Arbitration Case Neelix

Original announcement

• This is what I thought of after reading this announcement. How can you people expect to be taken seriously after making a decision like this? In my mind, you have lost all legitimacy by allowing Neelix to remain. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• I support and thank ArbCom for this decision. The community has sacrificed hours upon hours of its time finding and deleting the redirects, tearing apart Neelix's contribution history for evidence of abuse, and discussing what the appropriate sanctions should be. On top of that, the negativity and hurtful backlash verbalized by this community would be unbearable to anyone who sincerely and deeply regrets their actions; I do not fault Neelix at all for withdrawing from the project during this time. The Committee's decision allows the community to spend more of its valuable time on actually building the encyclopedia than on a case that has already seen a voluntary desysop and a topic ban. If disruption continues, we can discuss it, but there is nothing further to be done that would have any positive effect for the project at this time. Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• The amount of disruption caused and the amount of time and effort editors have spent cleaning up after him ...and all's that's happened is a 1 year redirect ban..... Sorry but Arbcom has officially become a joke!, 5 years time he'll do the exact same thing you mark my words, He done it in 2010, He's done it in 2015 and he'll do it in 2020. –Davey2010^Talk 02:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• So many editors are banned for so much less. Had he not been an Admin the outcome would have been so different. Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Come on, folks. ArbCom has too much on its plate to deal with this. They're still trying to find more good admins they can desysop this year and an excuse to ban Corbett so can't be bothered with an admin that abused his station to protect his walled garden of POV interests and his thousands of horrible, mostly nonsensical, redirects that he's left to others to clean up. His disruption was quiet so that's okay. Capeo (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That mess of redirects would have to be cleaned up whether Neelix was blocked/banned or not. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

His mess of redirects was not his only damage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Super Mario Effect

In videogames, The Super Mario Effect is as follows: When Mario gets a power up that turns him into Super Mario, a mistake that would normally kill him as ordinary Mario simply turns him from Super Mario to ordinary Mario, then he has to make another mistake to be killed. Likewise when an administrator does something that would get an ordinary editor indefinitely blocked, he is desysopped, turning him into an ordinary editor. Then he has to do something else wrong to be actually blocked. ==Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Everyone should apply for Adminship, it's like an insurance policy. Legacypac (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As I stated, I saw enough for a ban here but I wasn't going to push the issue alone --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In reading the comments below, and especially the cited "Thousands upon thousands of unnecessary redirects" ANI report, I see a series of opinions/actions by different people, each quite reasonable by itself, combining to create the quite unreasonable Super Mario Effect. (listed in no particular order):

• There is a discussion at ANI that includes a section titled "Suggest that this should be brought to ArbCom". So some thought arbcom, not ANI, should decide -- a reasonable opinion, seeing as only arbcom can desysop, and indeed arbcom did take the case.
• The closing comment of that discussion specifically says "There are examples of abuse of admin tools, but that relates more closely to the ArbCom case. In the current matter, the creation of redirects is the primary concern, and I feel a topic ban should sufficiently resolve that..." So the ANI did not address Neelix's behavior as a whole, just a part of it, leaving the rest to arbcom. Quite reasonable -- why duplicate the discussion?
• Neelix resigns under a cloud, and arbcom shuts down the case before evidence is presented because the decision as to whether to desysop has been made for them by Neelix. Quite reasonable -- why go through all of that just to "desysop" someone who is not a sysop?
• I bring up the question of whether to revisit the block question at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Super Mario Effect. Discussion is closed after less than an hour and a half with the closing comment "This matter is at arbitration. Discuss it there." A reasonable close (the closer had no idea that arbcom would close it 19 hours later without ever creating an evidence or user statement page where we could actually discuss it).
• Comments lower in this page express opinions such as "the job of ArbCom was to evaluate what the community can't, adminship. Arbcom followed their mandate here, without overstepping the community" and "To not overrule the community's verdict gives ArbCom their correct role in cases like these. The only question [for arbcom to decide] was whether or not a desysop should take place." All quite reasonable interpretations of Wikipedia policy.

So if you combine all of the opinions/actions I list above, each one perfectly reasonable, the end result is that, because Neelix was an admin when he made the edits, Arbcom never looked at the total sum of Neelix's edits at all (no point), ANI started to look at the total sum of Neelix's edits, but in the end only ruled on a subset of them, deferring the rest of the behaviors to an arbcom case that never happened and telling those who wanted to discuss the matter further to discuss it at an arbcom case that never happened. Nobody ever addressed Neelix's behavior as a whole, as would happen to any ordinary editor, and the vast majority of discussion about Neelix's behavior happened under the assumption that there would soon be or already was an open arbcom case where evidence would be presented, users would make statements, and a range of remedies including a block or ban would be discussed and voted upon by arbcom -- none of which actually happened.

End result: Super Mario Effect. --Guy Macon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Good decision. To not overrule the community's verdict gives ArbCom their correct role in cases like these. The only question was whether or not a desysop should take place, but when Neelix voluntarily resigned this became moot. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I tend to agree, the community made their choice, and the job of ArbCom was to evaluate what the community can't, adminship. Arbcom followed their mandate here, without overstepping the community. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The community discussion was short circuited by the referral to ArbComm. Constructive edits like this on a Neelix article earn accts indef blocks here. He engaged in thousands of nonconstructive edits. Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page when you queried me about it, and as the block notice on the user's talk page clearly states, that block had nothing to do with whether the user's edits were constructive or not. When you are in violation of WP:GROUPNAME, it matters what article you edit, now how. Just setting the record straight ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That's wrong. Take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens.2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects. It was closed by Harrias who assessed community consensus after 6 days of discussion, with no mention of ArbCom mandating an early closure. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is an ideal outcome. It is common practice for us to not block a person who has stopped their disruptive behaviour. I don't think they are getting away with anything. The admin bit was problematic but it was voluntarily removed, I have no doubt that if this was not the case then arbcom would have taken action in this area. Further damage has been prevented, conduct unbecoming has been addressed, arbcom was correct at not engaging in punitive measures. HighInBC 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• In ANI cases that involve regular users, stopping the disruptive behavior as soon as the ANI case opens does not automatically result in no block. You have to demonstrate that you understand why what you did was wrong, convince at least one admin that you won't do it again if unblocked, and in the case of large numbers of edits, assist in undoing the harm that you did. I see none of that here, and remain convinced that we should treat Neelix like regular Mario, not like Super Mario. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• This is an embarrassing outcome and shows the utter incompetence of Wikipedia leadership. Much of his behavior had nothing to do with redirects or administrative actions, so how can you say it's resolved? What are you talking about, community consensus? The ANI result was the assessment of one admin who felt sorry for Neelix. I applaud fellow editors like Guy Macon, Davey2010, Legacypac and Viriditas for pointing out the obvious and saying it like it is: a double standard of special treatment and favoritism for admins at the expense of the project. If ArbCom thinks this is going to be swept under the rug, think again. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a videogame where players get extra lives by getting enough points to play at the administrator level. A critical review of past desysoppings -- whether by committee vote or resignations under a cloud -- will show many editors upon desyopping simply cease to edit. Certainly an editor with a user page adorned with FA and GA icons --- as opposed to unobtrusive but valuable IP editors -- is a social creature, and the social feedback Neelix has received, along with the formal topic ban, is sufficiently preventative. Furthermore, and importantly, arbitration is not "leadership," it's dispute resolution. We do not have a legal system, we have a system intended to address behavior that interferes with encyclopedia building with minimum disruption. Dispute resolution eponymously is about resolving disputes. I understand concerns per WP:Civility meme and support the notion the efforts to improve the editing environment for all editors will likely benefit the project by encouraging a wider range of people to be comfortable editing but arbcom is not the mechanism to achieve that, and scapegoating / village stocking an individual, regardless of how totally out to lunch their judgement was, is not the way to achieve that. NE Ent 13:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Whether or not to block Neelix should be a community decision, not one handled by ArbCom. We need to be responsible for ourselves. ArbCom was involved because Neelix was an admin and they had to make sure to remove his sysop bit. If you feel that Neelix should be banned, once the ArbCom case is disposed of, you can make a motion at WP:ANI for a one year community ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Utter bullshit that he's not been blocked. Neelix has cried some "emotionally draining" and gone off with his tail between his legs, free to come back as if nothing has happened. ArbCom are the chocolate fireguards melting onto the logs of ignorance. Hats off to them! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Administratively imposed sanctions exist to protect Wikipedia from disruption, not for the community to exact its pound of flesh. Neelix's desysopping removes his autopatrolled user right, which will prevent him from creating any more redirects unnoticed. This, coupled with a community ban on the creation of redirects, should be sufficient to prevent future difficulties. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, he's self-desysopped under a cloud, the community imposed a years topic ban. If the community wanted him site banned or indef blocked it would have done so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC).

Admins are part of the community, and they look after their own, when one goes rogue. Sends a great message to everyone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I've seen this in a few places now, and I'll reply once, here alone. I've rarely come across Neelix before; I knew his name from a couple of places, but as far as I can recall (and I could be wrong) we haven't interacted significantly. When I closed the ANI, the fact that he was an admin did not consciously change my decision making. Subconsciously, perhaps the "Super Mario Effect" did play its part, but at no stage did I think "oh, he's an admin, better look after him." Harrias ^talk 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But had he not been an admin, would you have not blocked him for months for any one of the creation of inappropriate BLPs, redirect spam, or proliferation of tit additions? Cause I see people banned immediately for far worse. It would have been a two or three post ANi and then a ban. Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

But the community decided not to. That shouldn't be up to ArbCom when the community decides otherwise. p.p. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 functionary changes

Original announcement

The casual reader might wonder why the committee did that. NE Ent 22:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point. For the casual (or future) reader who finds this talk section, the reason is because Yunshui resigned from the arbitration committee and retired as an editor, citing burnout and personal reasons on his user talk page. I can't remember whether it is policy or convention, but users who leave arbcom in good standing (for whatever reason) normally have their access to CU and OS removed without prejudice unless they indicate a desire to keep one or both - Yunshui expressed no such desire. The tools are also routinely removed, without prejudice to reacquisition, from editors who do not meet the activity requirements, and Yunshui does not expect to be meeting those requirements going forward (having retired from the project) so he would have the permissions removed in a few months anyway. If people feel there would be benefit in making this clear on the motion we'll consider doing so - but only if someone can come up with a much less verbose explanation than mine! Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel like not a day goes by when I do not see some new evidence of good people feeling like they have been burned out by being on ArbCom, or by some other exposure to Wiki-drama. That is very, very sad. I'm saying that sympathetically, not as a criticism of the Committee. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Just as WP:CESSPIT --> WP:ANI, over the years I've come to believe WP:Ninth Circle of Wiki-Hell should --> WP:AC. (I'd create it myself except for that whole "pointy" thing ...) NE Ent 23:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that before. Possibly the best redirect ever! (I've fantasized about redirecting Pain in fish to my user talk page...) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Following his resignation from the Arbitration Committee for personal reasons, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Yunshui (talk · contribs) are removed, without prejudice against his requesting reinstatement in the future. We thank him for his service. NE Ent 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect there are a number of people who were not aware of Yunshui's resignation or Euryalus's decision to step down at the end of the year. Past practice seems to have been to announce such resignations on this noticeboard (e.g. [5] [6]). Perhaps it is worth making such an announcement now so that those watching this noticeboard are brought up to speed? It also provides an opportunity to make sure they are both properly thanked for their contributions. WJBscribe (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll add NE Ent's suggested words (or an approximation thereof, linking to Yunshui's talk page) to the motion regarding Yunshui. Pinging Euryalus for comment about whether he wants to make a statement of resignation here or not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion; I wasn't aware that it wasn't announced previously. LFaraone 16:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I announced early retirement back in September, on my talkpage and on the arbitration talkpage. Reproducing the reasons below:-

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) 19:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Motion: BASC disbanded (November 2015)

Original motion

Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC

An RfC has been opened to discuss if non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee should be granted the administrator right. All editors are encouraged to provide their input. Mike V • Talk 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

E-cigs case closed

Original announcement

The numbering of the announcement does not match that of the decision, and what happened to "4" in the actual decision? "4" was not a party to the case, and therefore should not be banned from the decision. NE Ent 22:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@@Miniapolis: (Ping in case you haven't seen this.) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Miniapolis 23:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Removal of Unused Sanctions

Original announcement

Palestine-Israel articles 3 case closed

Original announcement

Am I right in reading 1) as meaning that all pages "that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" should now be semi-protected or similar? Can a bot be commissioned to do this? Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Two admins to one user means I drop this issue. For the record, it's extraordinarily draconian throws AGF out the window.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Remedy number 1 needs to be struck as a violation of AGF. I do vandal patrol a lot, and a lot of vandalism is done by IP's [edit] and new accounts [/edit], however, not all of it is, so , to ban all IP's [edit] and new accounts [/edit] irregardless of how many or how few edits they have is assuming bad faith on the part of IP's. Sorry, that's just wrong and needs to be struck KoshVorlon 12:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @KoshVorlon: it also prevents "accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure" from editing, not just IPs. @Nick-D: My guess is that an edit filter will be used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Callanecc , actually, the text of the ruling says All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict so you're correct, however, it's still massive ABF on IP and accounts. KoshVorlon 13:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @KoshVorlon: Given 500/30 is the only new remedy coming out of this three month case it is doubtful it will be just struck. --NeilN talk to me 14:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @KoshVorlon: I Suggest you ask next year's committee about this. The only way for it to be rescinded is by ArbCom. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC) In actu How about an IAR fix that removes this patently bad ruling. We don't need to wait on a new set of Arbiters, the current arbiters can IAR remove it, I mean, it makes no sense and, like I said, it violated AGF big time. (Not to mention it's punative and not prevantative) KoshVorlon 17:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC) @KoshVorlon: The remedy that you have issue with was approved by a majority of the arbitrators as recently as yesterday. What makes you think that a re-vote today would be any different? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D, see related conversation at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You spent 3 months to decide to... put a trivial obstacle in front of new accounts making changes to Israel and Palestine posts and nothing else? Wow.Dan Murphy (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This has to be one of the worst outcomes of an Arbcom case of all time. The main problems in this topic area are long-term editors who are extremely biased, the fact that there are far more of these editors on one side than the other, and that this allows these editors to act together to tag team. The outcome does nothing to address the problems, but actually serves to make them worse them by ensuring that very few new editors will enter this topic area, reinforcing the numerical disparity. It's very sad that Arbcom members were unable to understand what's really going on here, and have had the wool pulled over their eyes by the problematic editors (two of the three evidence submissions cited are from such editors). How soon can this realistically be overturned? Number 57 17:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Number 57: I have to agree that this is a simply dire outcome. The problem editors that you refer to have basically chased off neutral editors, worked to get most of the opposing editors topic-banned, and have now successfully lobbied to bar new users - under the cover of preventing sockpuppetry - who might take their articles off-message. All this was explained in the Evidence phase but was disregarded, basically because we had to talk in vague, general and anecdotal terms with no specific evidence because of the ban on scrutinizing any particular editor. This effectively meant a ban on scrutinizing the general conduct that makes the topic area such a unpleasant place to edit - with the exception of anonymous "socks" who were fair game and thus bore the brunt of the complaints which lead to this decision.

I suspect this topic will now go the same way as Climate change (where activist editors have proliferated a huge number of rambling articles on fringe aspects of the field as a vehicle for their propaganda, and dumped negative material into the BLPs of anyone notable who opposes their agenda, etc.) For my part, I will no longer edit any "500/30"-restricted articles, for any reason. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel I should note that the 500/30 restriction is inspired by a radical (to say the least) discretionary sanction that has been in place on Gamergate controversy for a while now, and it seems to have essentially killed off all the throwaway agitator accounts and sockpuppets that were plaguing that area. ArbCom wouldn't have tried to use it here if it wasn't effective there. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Different sets of problems require different solutions. This solution will entrench the problems in this topic area. Number 57 21:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This topic area is an important geopolitical issue, with a vast scope and enormous historical significance. On the other hand, Gamergate was, as far as I can tell, a bunch of raging idiots from a bunch of anarchic internet forums harrassing various women in the tech industry. The article - just a single article, I understand, came under attack from said raging idiots. The article itself is of limited interest to anyone outside a small internet subculture and a few feminists. It is not a particularly important historical event, and the article caused problems wildly disproportionate to its importance. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

admin activity requirements RFC

Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015

If approved, the proposed changes would marginally expand arbcom's authority to desysop in certain rare cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

BASC scutwork

Okay, its been 20 days ... I cleaned up User:Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee and Wikipedia:Banning policy for ya. I'd have done User:Arbitration Committee too, but since Risker saw fit to apply one of the pointless full protections in 2009 [7], some one else will have to remove the BASC reference on that.

Is there a committee plan to find and update other references to BASC? NE Ent 13:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the "pointlesss". My understanding is that User:Arbitration Committee is primarily for providing contact information, and users unfamiliar with Wikipedia process could unknowingly confuse it with a venue for discussion. — Ched :  ?  15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, @NE Ent:. The clerks have done some, so has Doug Weller. I'll remind them to scour the shire for further references,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• The protection wasn't pointless. It was to prevent others, including autoconfirmed but seriously misbehaving editors, from modifying the pages or attempting to carry out discussions with Arbcom through those pages. One could say the pages are the user equivalent of a high risk template. The page is "owned" by the Arbitration Committee, just as are User:Oversight and User:Checkuser and User:Arbcom. The committee took control of those usernames back in 2009 at the suggestion of an editor who had created one of the accounts to prevent impersonation. Those issues are still valid today, they're all role accounts so are blocked, and it's really not that hard to come here and make requests when they need to be updated every six years or so. Risker (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's pointless. In the two years User:Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee sat unprotected exactly zero "unfamiliar" users mistook it for a place to contact the subcommittee, the only "unauthorized" edit (except mine) was pretty vandalism [8] that was so unimportant it took two weeks for anyone to notice [9]. Altering the page would have zero impact on the project; it's just not that important. NE Ent 01:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

New trainee clerks (December 2015)

Original announcement (Mdann52)

Original announcement (Kharkiv07)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

Original announcement

• Thank goodness this thing is over with! Unlike most instances when there are DS, this case has both DS and 1RR for pages in the topic area. There is a template for pages covered under The Troubles case, that makes clear that there is 1RR in addition to DS. I'd like to suggest that someone who (unlike me) is good with templates, perhaps one of the clerks, should create a similar template that could be put on talk pages covered by GMO. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the template that I was talking about, that could easily be modified for use here: Template:Troubles restriction. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: If this isn't done in about 12 hours, ping me and I'll do it (in my capacity as an editor, not a clerk). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@L235: Thanks! That's great. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@L235 and Tryptofish: How's Template:ARBGMO notification. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Thank you so much for doing this! And also thank you for the hatting below. I've carefully read the template, and please bear with me in my ex-college professor picky proofreading.

1. Beginning of second paragraph: "Discretionary sanctions are", not "is".
2. I kind of like the way Template:Troubles restriction explains at more length and in a more user-friendly way the idea of 1RR. The new draft treats 1RR much more briefly, and only at the end. Perhaps it would be helpful to expand a bit more on 1RR, especially for new editors who may not be familiar with the idea.
3. I just realized that we actually need two templates. The one you created is for putting on editors' user talk pages. We also need one to put at the top of article talk pages.

Again, thanks. And by the way, the events of the past two days indicate that such alerts to editors are urgently needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:
1. That one should be is as it's referring to the discretionary sanctions system as opposed to the discretionary sanctions themselves.
2. I've reworded the bit about 1RR a little (very similar to the amount of info in the Troubles section, but I don't want to make it too long. I'm stuck leaving it at the bottom as otherwise the alert won't have any effect.
3. I'll do one for talk pages in the next few hours.
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we now have {{subst:ARBGMO alert}}, {{ARBGMO talk notice}} and {{Editnotice GMO 1RR}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's very helpful. I just made some fixes to ARBGMO alert, so please check those. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• This sucks. That's my take. And no one still has ever explained to me why I was named a party by Jytdog, when not a word of testimony was subsequently offered regarding me (chilling effect) and when Admin JzG/Guy, who had to be slapped with an interaction ban with SageRad due to JzG's outrageous harassment, escapes scott-free. I call bullshit. That's right. Bull shit. Jusdafax 05:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The back and forth and grave-dancing here is not helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Look at the bright side, Jytdog is gone. prokaryotes (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Re: the edit right above mine. @Arbs: I told you so. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Do you meant to mention that you do not consider Jytdog's block a good block? If you reply to me don't make vague comments, i find this rather rude. prokaryotes (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC) I do not intend to be rude. I agreed with that block, as I said at that time, but that block has been lifted. What I meant was that they dropped the ball with respect to you. As I said on the PD talk page, AGK and Seraphimblade got it right, and some other Arbs should have taken a second look at you before rushing the close the case. And here you are suddenly back, barely a day after the case closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Are you trying to suggest that i shouldn't comment here? prokaryotes (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC) I don't think anyone is suggesting that you not comment, but when you do post a comment that essentially expresses the opinion that you are blameless, you should not be surprised when someone responds by expressing the opinion that you are not. (Please note that I have said nothing concerning which of those two opinions are correct.) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Most of these remedies are suboptimal and will do more harm than good in the long run. I don't think the Committee as a whole recognizes the crux of the problem and I am skeptical about whether most arbitrators still have the time, or even the interest, to deal with this again. Although I recognize some good-faith efforts, the overall outcome of this case has finally convinced me that the current Arbitration Committee is short-sighted, indecisive, unwilling to resolve the most entrenched disputes on Wikipedia, and ultimately a negative asset to the project. -RoseL2P (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The most entrenched disputes in WP are usually content disputes, as is the case here. Arb com cannot deal with them directly, and can only deal with the conduct arising from them. Since the content dispute in some cases will obviously continue, it is predictable that related conduct problems will arise. It is in that sense true we cannot deal with the fundamental issues, but such is the inevitable consequence of open editing and WP fundamental policy of having no central authority to deal definitively with content. I am quite sure the community would overwhelmingly and immediately reject any attempt of ours to put ourself into such a position. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Wikipedia has become the most important place on the internet to get your POV reflected. Creationists, cold fusionists, fans of quack medicines, anti-GMO, animal rights and dozens of other activists are looking to make Wikipedia reflect their beliefs instead of reality. Protectors of the project bur out and melt down, the cranks keep on coming. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And DrChrissy has just made Genetically Modified Livestock lol. Just to skirt GMOs. I warned you ArbCom. In the end the community is going to end up having to do what you didn't. Capeo (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The arbitration decision on DrChrissy says he is topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants (not organisms). It is reasonable for him to create Genetically modified livestock as an article he can edit. Though the topic ban on agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted seems to be a killer. What is that meant to cover? Is water an agricultural chemical, broadly interpreted? (Personal attack removed) --Epipelagic (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The continual painting of anyone who is critical of the agrochemical or biotech industry as equivalent to "quack" and "fringe" and "anti-science" is for one thing inaccurate and for another, odious and prejudicial. It's nasty language and j resent it highly. It's a continuous propaganda move that's propagated by a vitriolic and vocal minority here. I reject it. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to further correct @Capeo:'s incorrect mind-reading of my creating Genetically modified livestock. I noticed there was already an article on Genetically modified crops so I thought one on livestock would be a nice sister-article, and also allow separate progression of the laboratory animal articles e.g. (Genetically modified mouse), thus forming a nice suite of articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

[G]enetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals broadly construed. That's an extremely broad swath of content, especially the agricultural chemicals one. Guettarda (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Calling out other editors is not productive nor needed. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All I can say is I told you so! Kingofaces43 has started reverting out content from his now-topic-banned opponents and templated me for edit warring immediately after I made one edit on Glyphosate - and still has the gall to accuse me of edit warring and creating drama, threatening AE after I made one edit. Arbs should have dealt with him.Minor4th 05:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC) P.S. you totally dropped the ball on JzG too. There's always the possibility of a request for amendment to deal with him since y'all decided that it would be procedurally improper to make any findings about him after refusing to add him as a party after several requests. I'm so disappointed. Minor4th 05:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC) I see he also templated MontanaBW for edit warring when she had made a single edit to the same article. And the beat goes on ... Minor4th 05:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Same scummy tactics. They will do anything to anyone to get what they want. Jusdafax 06:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC) KingOfAces43 and Yobol, with their anti science smears and continued aggressive edits as well as related bullying of others has to stop. prokaryotes (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Making use of my admittedly very poor tea leaf-reading abilities, I think that the results of the recent ArbCom election mean that, when some form of GMO-2 emerges after the new year, the new membership of the Committee will be equipped to do a much better job of seeing through the noise, and actually dealing with it, than the outgoing membership was. What that means is that the loudest complainers in the discussion just above should be a lot more worried than they actually are, but I guess they don't see it the way that I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

"After the new year"? That long? You're an optimist! Geogene (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm only referring to when the terms of the outgoing Arbs end and the terms of the newly elected Arbs begin! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No need for the back and forth. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shame on you, Trypto, playing the fear card. Jusdafax 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC) No, it's not a threat, just a statement of reality, and frankly, good advice. The just-closed case did make it pretty clear which editors did and which editors did not find themselves in the PD, and one should not expect to do the same thing a second time while anticipating a different outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC) It's a threat, very polite, very cautious, but indicative of the basic tactic used to shut up those questioning the propriety of the GMO articles and the methodology of those who seek to trivialize, belittle and intimidate the questioners. I repeat: shame on you, especially for standing up for Big Bully Jytdog. Fie. Jusdafax 16:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC) This is the point in a discussion when I usually pull out my trademarked response of "yes, and I smell bad, too." But I've gotta say, I can't remember the last time I heard "Fie" on-Wiki. If you really followed what I've been saying, I switched from defending Jytdog to being fed up with him a long time ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am a party to the case, and pretty much the poster child of the banned editors, to state my position here in this dialogue.

In so many words, i echo Jusdafax in calling "bullshit" on the case, on so many levels. Judgments were shallow and biased. Arbitrators are tasked with judging people's behavior, not the content. For one thing, it seems there is a pervasive bias to assume that anyone editing against the general industry interests is "fringe" and "anti-GMO" and "activist" and "POV pushing" and "anti-science" etc... a general litany of prejudice exists. Let us admit this clearly. It's a slanted field to begin with, and there's a bias present. The judgment even resulted in an aspersion by one arbitrator against me in the judgment itself, when Seraphimblade said that i accuse anyone who disagrees with me on content of bullying. That is simply not true at all, and it's sadly emblematic of the prejudice that i feel against me and any other editor who has dared to work on content in a way that is not favorable to the agrochemical industry. This is such a strange state of affairs, and there is so much that remains unexamined, and needs to be unpacked here. I hope it will happen.

Let me point out that i am not inherently "anti-GMO". I've worked in labs, in microbial ecology, and worked with genetic knockout strains and such things. I understand genetic modification, and i'm not against it inherently. I'm very much on the side of science -- and of using it in an unbiased way. I've weighed in on the glyphosate page, for instance, to properly use secondary sources. I see the "other side" so to speak (those who wish to sanitize the glyphosate article for instance) as pushing a POV often moreso. It's obvious to me. And yet arbitrators and many others still speak of "anti-GMO editors" and "fringe" and "anti-science" when often those spoken of are anything but, are in fact very pro-science. Justice will not be found in this atmosphere of constant aspersion by prejudicial remarks. Science is neutral (while it can be gamed just like regulation and governance). Science is not allied with me, nor with Jytdog or Kingofaces43. It is what it is.

This case was a huge disappointment to me. I never asked to be party to it, but when it started i admit i had some hope that the issues would work out, and that justice would be done. What i've seen is a kangaroo court, though... a cabal with a few dissenting voices (including arbs) who stood up for principles and evidence, but the general current being a McCarthyism against those who are critical about whitewashing of the whole topic area.

I have called out editors who would be seen as "on my side" sometimes, and i've reverted edits that would make glyphosate look bad, for instance, because they were not right. I am not here to right great wrongs in the sense it's usually meant, but only to write great articles. Reality is its own arbiter, if the process has integrity. Unfortunately, the process here at Wikipedia has proven to not have integrity, and to be eminently able to be manipulated by those who work the system. The "proper channels" of dispute resolution failed me. They do not work. There is systemic bias, and a heavy gang of editors who take it upon themselves to make sure that the power structure supports their side, instead of supporting integrity, and creating a good editing environment for everyone who is willing to be civil and respect sources.

There is so much promise here at Wikipedia, as a place where people of many points of view can work together cooperatively, learning from each other, giving and taking, expanding our own worldviews by interacting with people of many perspectives. But that promise is being wasted, and the readers are being let down, because of the pervasive power gaming that is going on here.

We need to take a meta-level look at what is wrong, and work on fixing it. SageRad (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No need for the back and forth here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That last is sound advice. Speaking as somebody who has been where you are now, I suggest that you follow your own advice, and begin by looking into your own heart. If you cannot work within the system., save yourself (and many others) a good deal of grief and find a place where you can work productively. Wikipedia, as a community and a process is certainly not perfect, but it's working pretty well, all things considered, and calls to tear it down and start afresh are going to find very little traction here. Respect the community. Please. --Pete (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Skyring, as one of the several people who has had very bad behavior toward me, including posting mocking pictures on a talk page, and pushed a strong pro-industry POV against sources, and showed serious WP:IDHT behavior while accusing me of such, and other WP:POV RAILROAD behavior, if that's what you consider "community" then i say hasten the day! There is good community within Wikipedia and this is what i wih to foster. There is very harmful behavior and that is what i oppose. I want Wikipedia to actually work according to the policies and guidelines, which i respect with all my heart. Wikipedia is not a social forum, it's not Facebook, it's not a place to find your community needs, but it still can be such a good hearted place, and i have felt many good feelings from working on Wikipedia. But more than this, it is also an arbiter of the world's knowledge of the human species, and if this is not based on integrity, then we are really lost as a species. It's not a small thing. It matters. SageRad (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) If you wish to take the position that you are right and Wikipedia is wrong, your choice. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC) That's just you speaking Skyring. Not "Wikipedia". Not "the community". --Epipelagic (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hey old ArbCom, I am sure I speak for such users as Keilana and Kelapstick when I say thanks for taking care of this. As in, so we don't have to. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be suffering from over-optimism, @Drmies:. As I expect you know, scientists have an ethical obligation to respect science without regard to interest or influence, and failure to uphold that obligation or neglecting to see it upheld can and will end a career. A reading of the two passages Old ArbCom cites as having "articulated a clear POV" appear, to my fresh eye, to articulate this obligation, to which every scientist subscribes. They are expressed firmly and not entirely amicably, but ethical obligations ought to be firm, not flimsy, the context was in any case not amicable, and in any case ArbCom has clearly held in AE (and AE2, and Lightbreather) that even the appearance of amicability can be dispensed with. No one would say the C**** remark was amicable. There may be backstory here that Old Arbcom has not explained well -- that’s been their habit, to be sure. But if not, this one’s bound to land back in your new laps momentarily. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep, Drmies, you shouldn't get all excited yet. This case was not properly handled or completely resolved and parties that should have been included, weren't -- while this case took care of some serious issues that needed to be dealt with, I"m afraid the Arbs lost interest around the evidence phase and never regained enough interest to see the case to a meaningful conclusion. The behaviors that landed us at Arb have started afresh once the case was closed. So, yeah, there will be a GMO2 on your watch - bet on it. q:) Minor4th 08:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me--I'm urgently wanted in Timbuktu during January and February, so good luck to everyone. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

We will find you, drag you back and glue your arse to your Arb chair (evil chuckle). Minor4th 03:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh?

indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals

Is this a ban from pages that deal with either one, or a ban from pages that deal only with both? Obviously DuPont is covered, as it relates to both, but Agricultural lime concentrates on an agricultural chemical without mentioning GMOs, and the article about the GMOs known as GloFish doesn't mention agricultural chemicals. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The wording was bad. Near the end of the case I warned that they needed to better clarify the scope and wording. I also said they should specifically include wording in regards to companies that manufacture these products as well because a significant portion of the conflict revolved around Monsanto yet we already have one of the topic banned actors in the case editing in regards to Monsanto. Capeo (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just let every company write their own article? That way, they could present a perfect brochure-like image to the world via Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Better idea: why don't we have them written by editors that don't have an ax to grind? Capeo (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A third idea: represent reality whether it's favorable or unfavorable to any company or any chemical or any topic at all. Allow multiple points of view to reconcile through good dialogue. Adhere to wp:npov truly, not some biased version of that concept. If a company knowingly sold a harmful chemical, let it be in the article. If it didn't then don't. Simple. SageRad (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a very big difference between being in the article and being given undue weight. Capeo (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course i understand that. SageRad (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire case suffers unfortunately from poor wording in the first draft of the PD combined with a failure to revise the wording for the final decision. But having followed the case, I'm confident that the intended meaning of the full phrase – "genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" – is with a boolean "or" rather than "and". Thus, it covers pages about GMOs, pages about agri biotech, and pages about ag chemicals, as well as pages about combinations thereof – but it is not restricted only to combinations of all three. As for GloFish, the advent of GMO salmon farming means that "broadly construed" should be understood broadly. As for agricultural lime, there were problems with multiple pesticide pages that did not mention GMOs, so again, it would be prudent for editors to construe it broadly. If any of the Arbs who made the decision are not too exhausted to comment, it would be good if they would check whether I got that right. And yes, Drmies, you should brace yourself for some sort of second act. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What happened to "agricultural biotechnology"? Was it omitted by accident or removed intentionally? While you two were leaving these comments, I was expanding my question. See below for the whole thing. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, you are right. It's in the DS, but not in the topic bans for individual editors. I'm thinking it's an accident, and requests for clarification or amendment are sure to follow. Nonetheless, I think it would be common sense for affected editors not to test the boundaries. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that. I have obviously been thinking what this ArbCom case means to me. The 1RR applies to "Agricultural Biotechnology" broadly construed. All of you should look at the article Agricultural biotechnology and see what this includes. At least one of the topic areas has had its 1RR breached (I suspect unknowingly) today. Some of the medics will become very worried! DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What happened to "agricultural biotechnology"? Was it omitted by accident or removed intentionally? Either way, it's helpful, as use of scientific tools and techniques, including genetic engineering, molecular markers, molecular diagnostics, vaccines, and tissue culture, to modify living organisms: plants, animals, and microorganisms could embrace everything from selective breeding to Jonathan Edwards, a victim of an early vaccination attempt gone badly. Nyttend (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biotechnology as: “any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products for specific use” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992). This definition includes medical and industrial applications as well as many of the tools and techniques that are commonplace in agriculture and food production.[10]DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As this case continued to drag on and on I kept getting an uncomfortable feeling re the "agricultural chemicals" wording, thinking "will it be said later that the banned editors are banned from all ag chem articles?" Each time I pushed back my fears because the case was about GM chems - even the heading of this section reads Genetically modified organisms case closed. I really do pray that I was not wrong about that... Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, I noticed the potential problem with 1RR for agricultural biotechnology a while ago. I think that some editors just became so focused on getting punishment for others, the bigger picture was not seen. Now we are all under 1RR for the Fermentation, Selective breeding articles, etc, etc. I feel sorry for the person who has to put 1RR templates on all the articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment is worth linking to here. If not? Feel free to ignore or delete. — Ched :  ?  17:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's well worth linking to, although one will probably suffer no time loss in waiting for an answer if one waits until the new members take office.

That said (and I should probably have my head examined for coming to ArbCom's defense, all things considered), I really do not think that anyone who exercises common sense will have any kind of problem with respect to topics of "agricultural biotechnology" that might fall outside of either "genetically modified organisms" or "agricultural chemicals", as to whether or not it is within case scope. But please notice that I said "anyone who exercises common sense", which is not the same thing as "anyone". If someone chooses to discard common sense, well what will happen should be pretty predictable (humor about fermentation notwithstanding). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, the problem is that common sense does not prevail when people are so bloody-minded to play gotcha. Remember I told you about an editor/admin who told me to count the words relating to human medicine and laboratory animals to see if using a source would be in breach of my topic ban. This mentality will occur under the agricultural biotechnology 1RR which now exists across Wikipedia. Can I bring some popcorn and hide under that rock with you? ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that concern. I think the explicit carve-out for you with respect to animals is one of the things that they got right in the decision, and it should help you there. Anything that is animal, not plant, not protist, is probably OK for you. Anything remotely overlapping with GMO plant, GMO plant agriculture, or agricultural chemical, you should play it safe. If you go near a borderline, then someone playing gotcha will have enough credibility to inflict some grief on you. But if you stay extra far away from boundaries, anyone playing gotcha will look silly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The best way for me to understand is to ask a specific question: Will DrChrissy be able to edit the organophosphate articles? Gandydancer (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure from the indent if you are asking me, but I'd say it would be prudent not to edit it, especially with regard to any issues of safety or controversy. But that's really a question for the Arbs, if any of them would be willing to answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This whole thread is certainly not just about me, but if ArbCom are going to look at clarification of my ban, I wonder if this includes Genetically modified organism and other articles where animals are covered but also other organisms covered by my ban. I'm not looking to make edits about organisms covered by my ban, I am simply seeking clarification about articles I am allowed to edit.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And it's not about me either, so I feel awkward about answering, but I also want to, because that question is an easy one and I have no confidence that you will get a timely response from the Arbs. It's a no-brainer: you cannot touch that page or its talk, even if it's a section only about animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I actually disagree, but, I am clearly making some errors of judgement here so I will leave it well alone.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Just compare the page name with the case name. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

But the name is GMO - I accept that for DS and 1RR findings which apply to us all, however, I was wondering whether my topic ban, which states only one kingdom, covered the article. Let's just drop this Trypto. I accept your interpretation and will not edit the page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Trypto, I appreciate your time... It is very important to me as I have a great deal of interest in pesticides and I need any help I can get with them without fear that a GMO ruling applies to them. I would like very much to find an answer - do you know what I should do to find one? Thanks. (as for me, it would seem it would set a terrible precedent if the GMO ruling covers all ag chems) Gandydancer (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, but Gandy - there are many ambiguities like what you mention, and I think there is going to have to be a clarification request; perhaps even an omnibus clarification requests to tighten up a number of remedies that are now subject to opposing interpretations. DrChrissy's topic ban in particular is going to cause problems and could even stoke the battleground further (not because of you, DrChrissy, but because of those who would like to see you banished from the largest possible scope of articles). Minor4th 03:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know what more to say. I'd rather that Arbs answer these questions, not me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was meant to cover all 3 areas, not just the interesection of them. Unless my colleagues object I'm going to switch the 'and's for 'or's. Doug Weller (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A proposed compromise

I can see from the ongoing discussion above, and from discussions at pages such as User talk:Petrarchan47, that the ArbCom case may have addressed some behavioral issues but did not address the underlying conflict between pro-GMO/pro-industry/pro-whateveryouwanttocallit, and anti-GMO factions within Wikipedia. Arguments have been made again and again both in favor of and against GMOs, to the point that we're all going around in circles across multiple talk pages (and within content articles), and I think it's safe to say most editors are firmly entrenched in their ideas, opinions, and what WP articles need to represent. Well, we're going to have to find a way to work together despite our differences, and make sure we don't burn ourselves out or conduct ourselves unprofessionally as was done previously. Let's see if we can figure out something here.

It seems that much of the argument - if you ignore the clear behavioral problems - boil down to what should be considered WP:UNDUE or WP:POV pushing when it comes to editing articles. I don't think anyone - again, outside of those editors who were censured - believes that anti-GMO scientific evidence, or discussion of the existence of anti-GMO opinions despite lack of scientific evidence, should be censored in its entirety. It's simply a matter of how those opinions are expressed within the article: not as undisputed fact, and not such that they take up 80% of the article. So, let me propose something like the following as a very generic guideline, to of course be modified based on the subject matter at hand, and known facts:

• 50% of article = Objective, uncontroversial content (chemical formula, date and method of origin, intended use, history, etc.)
• 25% of article = Commentary on scientific opinion regarding efficacy, human/animal/environmental/etc. safety, and the like (majority opinion)
• 15% of article = Commentary on scientific opinion regarding the same (minority opinion response)
• 10% of article = Response to minority opinion

I think that something like this would ensure that neither pro-GMO nor anti-GMO discussions overwhelm the articles, that both opinions are expressed, that neither opinion is expressed as undisputed fact, that neither side is given UNDUE, and that (per WP policy) we all stick to what is known and the implications thereof. It also ensures that we keep to the most important facts only, without getting bogged down in the minutiae of the arguments we have spouted again and again.

OK, time to shoot holes in this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that this is a very good faith proposal, but ArbCom really isn't the right place for the discussion, because ArbCom (officially) doesn't decide content issues, only conduct. If you want, you can bring it up at an article talk page, or, if you want to apply it to multiple articles, you could try Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. (But frankly, I'm pessimistic that you will get wide agreement about this stuff.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The auto-posts on various users' talk pages instructed we, the involved parties, to discuss the ArbCom case post-mortem on this page. Article talk pages would not be sufficient as we would end up with numerous conflicting discussions, when we need a general guiding principle for the entire subject. This page may not, technically, be the "correct" place for such a discussion, but it is clearly the most centralized place for one, outside of "Requests for Mediation", which I would prefer not to use unless friendly attempts at this discussion fail. Regarding your last comment: I, too, am pessimistic, but it's worth a try. We NEED to find a way to work together. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate this proposal by Jtrevor99 for discussion, but i have some fundamental issues with a couple points of it. Mainly, that it still defines two sides, and one of those sides is called "anti-GMO" and then it's clearly also identified as the "minority position" in the percentage breakdown proposal. That in itself is aggregating thousands of questions into two "sides" of polarized and stereotyped nature, and secondly, it's supposing that one of those "sides" is the majority opinion, which comes pretty close to the sort of thing that happens when pro-industry position is equated with being "pro-science".

I would like to just say that there are thousands of content questions, and science doesn't take sides. On the question of whether glyphosate-based formulations hurt frog reproduction, for instance, what does the science say? Pro-industry agenda would be to say it doesn't hurt frogs much. "Anti-GMO" activist agenda would say "It hurts frogs! Oh no, Silent Spring revisited!" But good sourcing and accurate representation of sources would say something in the middle. Let's break down the sides -- not codify rules of engagement for the "sides". I would like to note that i've been the poster-child whipping-post in this case -- somehow -- i never asked to be but somehow i was -- and i'm not even "anti-GMO" per se. I've worked in a biology lab with knockout strains of bacteria, which are genetically modified organisms. I do have concerns about runaway variants, sort of Pandora's box concerns, and also concerns about specific traits that are introduced but it's not been a focus of my editing and i'm not "anti-GMO". However, i have real world experience with the corrupt practices of the chemical industry and i see the horrible damage done by some actors in the industry, well-known and well-documented malpractice that damaged many people and ecosystems, and that's one focus of my editing -- which is allowed and ok by Wikipedia guidelines.

I hope it's clear what i'm getting at. It comes down to sourcing and adherence to the actual science. We can't formulize things like this. SageRad (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jtrevor99 - I appreciate your proactive attempt to find some middle ground, but I want to point out what I have observed since the case started. Back in September, POV's were pretty well divided on the line of whether or not there's a scientific consensus that GMO foods are as safe as conventional foods. The disputes now are mostly about 1. the safety/risk of ag chemicals to humans, animals and the environment, 2. the reliability of industry funded and promoted research, and the reliability of independent researchers who have published conclusions that are not favorable to the industry, and 3. attempts to either whitewash or denigrate BLP's, depending on how closely the BLP's views are aligned with our "science" bloc of editors in the topic area.

When trying to formulate proposals, I think it's important to really drill down to what is actually in dispute. Minor4th 03:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I would disagree with your assessment of the situation. I suspect what you have described is what people want the discussion to be about, but there clearly remain two sides. You need look no further than User talk:Petrarchan47, in which I was called "hilarious" and "bull****" earlier today by editors who were part of this case for daring to attempt to strike a compromise allowing both sides of the discussion to appear in equitable parts in such articles. And no, I did not return the favor; you're welcome to check diffs to confirm this. Frankly, it is not possible to work with uncivil and Jytdogesque editors like Petrarchan47 in such a way as to improve WP content, and so I am glad he has chosen to retire. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I really do think that you meant well, and good for you, for that. But you attempted an impossible task, because the problems are about conduct, not content. The user talk page to which you linked is certainly, well, unusual. A party to the case, about whom ArbCom could not make up their minds, "retired" as a registered editor, but is using their talk page, as an IP, as a sort of blog to advocate against Wikipedia and for the kind of stuff that got them into the case to begin with. And if one reads what is there, there is little doubt that what AGK and Seraphimblade tried to tell the rest of the Committee was right. Look at that, and look at AE (just days after the case closed!) to see the other editors where ArbCom dropped the ball, and, well, ArbCom, I told you so. Ain't gonna be no "compromise" here, so GMO-2 will be coming soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Very true. Chalk the "proposed compromise" up to naivete, I suppose. It's a shame I'm too busy IRL to be a substantial contributor to WP, as I am passionate about this topic and hate to see what's happening, including the burnout, incivility, and (perhaps as indicated by the "retired" author who keeps coming back) drama from multiple editors. I have little tolerance for POV-pushing, whether I agree with that POV or not. This clearly is not settled, nor will it be any time soon. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think Trypto is very probably right that there will be GMO-2. I am wondering whether we should discuss potential suggestions to ArbCom (very possibly a completely different committee) about improving the process or at least the atmosphere in which it is conducted. My first suggestion would be that all contributions to the case must be completely devoid of "name-calling" of editors, except where a specific accusation is being made and this is supported by evidence. By name-calling, I am thinking of "pro-GMO", "anti-GMO", "editor of fringey articles", "POV-pusher" etc. The clerks would be free to permanently delete (not just strike) such labeling of editors, and those contravening it would be dealt with in a strenuous manner.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't be discussing it at all. But no doubt that there needs to be an end to name calling, not only in cases, but on article and user talk pages as well, and it starts with the still alive-and-kicking accusations of shill-ery (just see that user talk page mentioned above). But if we are discussing suggestions to ArbCom, here are some of my more polite ones. Continue limiting the word count for evidence, but allow more diffs. Post a first draft of the PD on the Workshop page. Don't set unrealistic deadlines for posting of PDs. And read the evidence, instead of making decisions based on how well or poorly the first draft of the PD was worded. Don't just close cases because you are too fed up to make decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, this is the first time I've been accused of shillery simply for trying to enforce Wikipedia policy regarding scientifically verifiable topics, and striking a compromise that covers both/all viewpoints. It's a milestone of some kind. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to a large and growing club. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The same thing is happening, articles are being biased

This is a discussion about a specific article. Please move it to Talk:Vani Hari. Liz Read! Talk! 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The same thing is happening as has always been happening. I took a look at the edit history of the Vani Hari article and i see the same polarized dynamic happening, with the anti-Hari people working steadily to return that page to a hugely biased state. I see good independent editors who wade into the page, and try to make some corrections, immediately reverted and then chastised at their talk pages. I see gang-like behavior with a clear point of view pushing dynamic. It's not what we want Wikipedia to be, and note well that i'm not there and it's still happening. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC) What you claim as 'anti-hari' is more accurately 'anti pseudo-science'. Hari is one in a long line of BLP's who make foolish unscientific pronouncements which garner far more press and controversy than their otherwise less controversial life choices. If Hari had not consistantly peddled mis-interpreted, mis-understood woo pseudoscience, then her BLP would be half as big and would be quite respectable. Practically a saint even. The 'corrections' at Hari by what you term 'good independant editors' almost are always removal of material critical of Hari and seek to lessen the criticism. To anyone who is familiar with your editing, it is unsurprising to find that pattern described as a 'correction'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC) That comment shows the depth of the problem. There is a demonization of Hari by a pseudoskeptic crowd. She's not perfect but the POV pushed by those who have captured and maintain control over that page is rather extreme and certainly not NPOV. Relativity of perception is necessary to keep in mind. There's an agenda at work there and it's not NPOV. SageRad (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Note to others, this discussion has been had before. Its pretty much a continuation of SageRad's agenda-driven editing. Where confronted with dissenting opinion, clearly its a POV controlling cabel. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Also I would point out before you take this any further, Vani Hari easily falls under a topic ban on GMO's broadly construed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Well, there you go, seeming unable to discuss this on a meta-level, as you're talking over my shoulder to the others and saying "don't listen to SageRad, he's clearly biased" whereas i'm speaking to the relativity of points of view here on a meta level. Vani Hari is a person who speaks to questions of the chemical industry in the food field, and this includes GMOs as well as glyphosate as well as Red number 5, and HFCS and everything else. She's become a lightning rod for the topic area conflict, a symbol. She's the target of a group of people like Mark Alsip, "Science Babe" and a few others, who are on the "other side" in the corner of the chemical industry. It's a clear polarized conflict, and for you to then attempt to lasso me into that conflict is to make Wikipedia a battleground. I do not accept it. I'm speaking for the BLP on Vani Hari to be reasonable and in line with mainstream media. There is a group of people who are hellbent on making the Wikipedia article on her into an attack article similar to the Fear Babe book written by a few of the anti-Hari group. That's a problem and it's against the mission of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC) It cannot be discussed with you, you are topic banned from all pages related to GMO's broadly construed. You are no longer allowed to participate in discussion of GMO's, GMO advocates, GMO critics, and given 'broadly construed' and your argumentative nature you need to stay away from any page that contains the word 'GMO', What part of this do you not understand? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC) You're wrong about the scope and you're wrong if you think you can silence me here. Topic ban applies to articles about GMOs and agrochemicals. This forum is to dissect the conflict and I'm able to be here and discuss this. Please cease your attitude of controlling my voice. If you have anything to say about the topic then say it, or don't, but don't try to control others or silence others in this way. Not a good practice and quite offensive. It's extremely revealing to me that the side of the conflict that wishes to sanitize articles according to industry agenda is also the side that is constantly trying to silence those with dissenting voices. It's sad the Wikipedia has played into their hands. SageRad (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Hari is the definition of WP:Lunatic Charlatans and expert RS treat her as such thus so does WP. Capeo (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC) You're so clearly in the minority group that is attempting to demonize her far beyond real assessments of her in the mainstream media that it would be laughable if your camp were not actually in control of the BLP about her. Sorry but there's a real problem there. There's a hostile and toxic editing environment for anyone who wishes to bring balance there, or to work in good faith there on making sure the article reflects good sources. You can cherrypick pseudoscientific planted articles all you want, it still doesn't jive with the actual mainstream media coverage of her. It takes nuance and a lack of undue bias to work on that. I'm leaning toward a favorable assessment of her while recognizing her shortcomings and occasional errors, but there are people on her article who want to see blood. I'm serious. If you take time to look at the talk page history there, you'll see people making vicious insulting remarks about her and those are the people writing the article, who have captured the article in a gang/mobbing play. That's a problem for NPOV. That's a problem for Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC) To test your theory I just did a Google news search on her. Every story but one which was bio fluff piece was massively negative about her claims. All mainstream sources. Not sure what minority I'm in. Capeo (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Sigh, oh well, dont say you were not warned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Does the "you" in the above comment mean me? If so, i do not understand your meaning except to feel it as an abusive remark meant to have a chilling effect. Is that how it's meant? If not, please explain. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Obviously, there are still unresolved issues, so Drmies, I urge you to get a round-trip ticket when you head to Timbuktu. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Motion: BASC reform (November 2015)

Original motion

Temporary CU for 2015 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

Original announcement

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 [11], [12] and likely [13] 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)

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).
  

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)

Catflap08 and Hijiri88 case closed

Original announcement

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

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

Generic interaction ban wording

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

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

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016

peace bell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016 Arbitration Committee

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identify policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to User:DoRD

Original announcement

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

Genetically modified organisms case modified

Original announcement

• Comment I see two issues here. There is the continued digging a hole problem for which Drmies provides sound advice. Then there is the broadening of the topic ban. I can't find evidence in his edits requiring a broadening. The edits I looked at over the last month were expert level (a level sadly missing from so many science articles on Wikipedia). My view is why hinder the development of Wikipedia articles with the domain of the old topic ban – new topic ban when there isn't any evidence of problematic editing within the less restricted domain? --I am One of Many (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy is now under two topic bans, both for the same kind of behaviour. Basically this user is unable to entertain the possibility that he may be wrong, does not adequately distinguish between opinion and fact, and routinely abuses Wikipedia processes to try to remove opponents. This would be less of a problem if it were not combined with the user's absolute belief in a number of things that are either unsupported or solidly contradicted by independent scientific evidence.

As to not finding evidence of a problem, this edit cwould be entirely inappropriate even in an uncontentious area, and edi-warring to include it shows a complete lack of commitment to WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This new area is supposed to be broadly narrower "commercially produced agricultural chemicals" as opposed to "agricultural chemicals". The ctte could have used imagination and said "agrochemical industry", I suppose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC).

Wouldn't this sanction apply to, say, nitrogen? Jtrainor (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked a similar question, and I was told that this is a feature, rather than a bug. I predict a busy year at AE (admittedly, a safe prediction with or without this case modification). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Nitrogen unto itself no but fertilizer yes. Capeo (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What Capeo said --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How about sulfur dioxide? It's produced and sold by companies, and it's used to preserve agriculturally produced foods. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This entire remedy seems clumsy in any case. It'd be far easier to just ban from agriculture, broadly construed. Jtrainor (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd think sulfur dioxide would be outside the scope as agriculture is usually taken to mean food production not food processing after the fact. If that were the case then stuff like pickling would be within scope and I don't think that was the intention. Capeo (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to think that, but I lack confidence that the wording will be understood that way, especially when we are dealing with "broadly construed" – and food processing can begin right at the farm. It seems to me that wording along the lines of what I unsuccessfully suggested at ARCA, something like "pesticides, fertilizers, and related chemicals, broadly construed" would cover what actually should be covered, without introducing all manner of ambiguities that admins who have not followed the subject matter will have to parse at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)