Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

 * Original announcement


 * Seems like there's a small typo in 8.4, where the word "not" is repeated: "including, not not limited to". Pretty sure that isn't intended? ansh 666 02:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah... there is. Fixed here and on the case page; the first not was (I think obviously) supposed to be a but. Courcelles 02:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What happened to all of the missing numbers? We've got remedies 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.3, etc., but not 3.anything or 5.2.  Were they unsuccessful proposals that got only minority support on the committee?  Meanwhile, there are several links to the "standard topic ban", which all go to the nonexistent Administrators%27_noticeboard.  What's the correct link?  Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the missing numbers are failed proposals, the numbering is not changed form their proposal. (The standard topic ban is spelled out in Remedy 2.1) Courcelles 04:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I've left a note at the end of the WP:AN thread, saying basically "2.1 is the standard topic ban".  Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ya know, maybe you all should actually close a case before putting out a press release.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 05:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They didn't have a choice, really. The Guardian "article" (I'm not really allowed to call it what it really is) kinda forced their hand before they were finished deliberating. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 05:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At least they had the decency to correct the article, WP really needs a project to explain how the inner working of the encyclopaedia works to the public/press in order to make sure such mistakes don't happen again. There seems to be a big misunderstanding how Arbcom works. Avono (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. No matter how well documented our processes are, no matter how much effort isput into educating others how Arbcom works, it doesn't matter when you have biased reporters and clickbait authors trying to put their own spin on things. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 12:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They have a penchant for ignoring editors, so I'm perplexed as to why they care what that rag thinks. But the real point is commenting before the case closed was inappropriate.  They could have sent a letter to the editor after the fact.  Now they are wearing egg after making a substantial change less than a day later. If they felt the need to explain so urgently, they should have let the WMF handle it.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 09:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For those who may have not been following as closely, and therefore don't see a "substantial change", what are you referring to? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Statement from ArbCom says no bans. Then they ban Ryulong. Yes, the statement was technically true, because it said "right now." It was tremendously misleading, however, that some of them said "no bans right now," but then switched, with what appears to be no additional evidence presented to bans? I guess there must have been some back room horse trading and ultimatum dropping or something. Too bad deliberations are all private now. Hipocrite (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Guardian is protected by BLP now? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment would have been an attack on the article's author as much as on the article itself. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 21:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. For GamerGate, look at the many arbitrator prompts for evidence and input on the /Evidence and /Workshop pages. To encourage participation from all parties, we doubled evidence lengths on 4 Dec, and sent out a call for further and improved participation a week later. We tried,  Roger Davies  talk 14:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just hope ArbCom is prepared for disgruntled and/or sanctioned editors going to the press with their own version of the story to tell. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé !  12:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your albatross gentlemen. --Barberio 12:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also note that the ban passed invalidates the public press statement that was voted on by the ArbCom. I think in the light of that we should insist on identification of the individual ArbCom members who voted to make what became a misleading public statement. --Barberio 12:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Before any of you hyperventilate, remember that this case is not much different from ones that have happened before. Jehochman Talk 12:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not recall the ArbCom ever before issuing a press-release to try to defend it's self mid-case. Nor one that mistakenly pre-announced the result as being other than the one that was eventually issued. --Barberio 12:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The press release was unnecessary. Otherwise, it's business as usual. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Business as usual does not equate to business correctly undertaken. Barberio 13:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Watchlist WP:ACE2015. If you think you can do a better job, run.  If you don't like how some of the present arbitrators conducted themselves, ask them questions, make statements, write a guide, or vote against them. Jehochman Talk 13:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And, in the meantime, participate in cases. That's what the evidence and workshop pages are for. The big problem with the Gamergate case was low community participation. Don't wait until it's at voting and then start kicking ArbCom ass, it's too late.  Roger Davies  talk 14:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason people don't participate in cases is because they are a free-fire zone where it's not clear if anyone is ever being listened to at all. People have no idea what the arbs want to know more about, or what's driving discussion, because all of your discussions are held in secret, backroom horse trading and ultimatum dropping sessions on your mailing list. Prove me wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you didn't read what I said? The reason people don't participate in cases isn't because you aren't asking enough, it's because those of us who have been around the block know how to influence the committee. I mean, I'm giving away the secret, but User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration is right. I'm not even sure why I'm commenting here at all - you're the only one in a position to do anything about the back room reading this, and we're both aware that it's not changing as long as Arbcom is elected by a process that requires going along to get along, with a necessary precursor of going along to get along. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Short Brigade Harvester Boris is a great guy and his guide is excellent. We have tried to get rid of some of our peripheral responsibilities which take up a lot of time so that we can concentrate better on core stuff but there's zero interest in taking them on. I'm keen on reform, big reform if necessary, but nobody is prepared to work with the committee to help achieve it. It's not a one-way street.  Roger Davies  talk 14:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to do? Here, I'll take everything unrelated to actually filed cases and advanced permissions off of your hands - I've sent them to the circular file - you are no longer dealing with "child protection," and "anti-harassment." If the foundation wants something done about that, they can do it. You can pay me by no longer deliberating in private about anything, ever. Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If only it were that easy. We passed on Child Pro just before Christmas but it took a lot of work to get there.  Roger Davies  talk 15:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * The age old wiki canards of "People who are not willing to spend as much time invested in the project as we do are not allowed to criticise us!" and "It's not our fault you didn't know about it till after we'd already made our minds up!".
 * Also, are you honestly saying that the point at which a draft is published, is the point at which you stop listening to outside input? How does that work then, how do we know to start criticising potential decisions until you start voting on very badly worded ones? Are we supposed to read your minds and predict what we need to criticise? ArbCom used to make it very clear that they were not a 'formal court', and have recently insisted they are not the Wiki's "Supreme Court", yet now you insist we treat you like a court room and have to work within your bureaucracy. That we have to follow every one of your not-a-court's public-briefings, or check on people who may be a party to a case's talk page, in case there is ever a point where we need to say something. (But no person should ever advertise those themselves, or risk being accused of Canvasing...) And if we miss our window, then we must remain silent or be ignored?
 * What next, do we need start hiring advocates, have people monitoring cases being brought up so we know when to file our amicus briefs? Do you want to be a formal court, or do you still claim you are not acting like a formal court, make up your mind.
 * That the community, and those outside the community would have problems with this should not be a surprise. The last time you handled a case like this, a member of the press lambasted you for it, and you don't appear to have learned anything from it or comments made by the community at the time of that case. Blaming ArbCom's unforced errors on "low community participation" is not fair. You've consistently rebuffed community concern raised, by defending the process you follow. I want to ask you, if you are following a process that may be causing harm to Wikipedia, do you deserve community support? --Barberio 14:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can come up with a viable alternative process that allows the many differing stakeholders (not "both sides") in a complex and entrenched dispute to participate calmly and dispassionately, and somehow arrive at a binding solution, I'd love to hear.  Roger Davies  talk 14:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you folks should come up with one first. Protonk (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The main hurdle is getting people to address the issues and not spend their whole time fighting with or attacking each other. Address that and much of it is cracked,  Roger Davies  talk 15:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't buy that. This isn't arbcom's first rodeo. Cases are characterized by people fighting intractably--that's what brings the issue before the committee. If the lack of evidence or the lack of decorum was so poisonous (as many arbs knew it would be before the case opened), why were no termporary injunctions proposed? Why was no one sanctioned during the case for gumming up the works? Why, at the conclusion of the case is there unanimous support for a principle extolling the importance of decorum during the case if a drafting arbitrator feels behavior during the case negatively impacted the decision? Protonk (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What sort of injunctions? Injunctions to be nice to each other? Conduct during cases always impacts on the outcome. We simply don't have enough clerks to keep stuff tightly locked down and if we started handing out lengthy blocks "simply" for case misconduct, the community would go ballistic.  Roger Davies  talk 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno, injunctions to stop people from filling the evidence page with shit, making it hard for anyone who isn't already fully devoted to the case to even know if their evidence will be read or duplicates something elsewhere. Or stopping people from swapping evidence sections to escape limits. Or demanding people put up or shut up with respect to accusations made with minimal or non-germane evidence. Really anything envisioned by Beeblebrox here. And I don't know if you can tell, but the community is going ballistic. Maybe that's six on one hand, half a dozen in the other but it's distressing to see arbcom know in advance that conduct would be a problem and that the case needed to be moved along at an appropriate pace then just...do nothing until the case concludes at which point the community is blamed for not bringing enough evidence. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * People fighting with and attacking each other - when one side is using paintball guns and the other nuclear weapons. The committee did exactly what I warned you against on the case request page and gave the harassers exactly what they wanted. You punted the people trying to protect the article at personal risk to themselves, left a vacuum that will more likely be filled by the SPAs than anytone else, and only offered the community the laughable remedy 18 which is basically a request asking for people willing to be doxxed and threatened for trying to maintain Wikipedia's policies.  Oh, and if you do so, you can expect to be sanctioned for it.  No thanks Resolute 16:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If only there were some kind of committee, elected by the community, that could use it's weight to initiate a review and reform of the arbitration policy? Perhaps they could start an RfC, I understand that's a tool editors can use to draw in attention to something they need help with.
 * But to be serious, if you are sincere about supporting reform, we can start an RfC on the process right now and you can lend your support to that review. -Barberio 15:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly support any reasonable proposal, really, but don't expect me to turn up and support a load of arb-kicking stuff. The fact is that the writing has been on the wall for the committee in its current form for a couple of years now. Too much baggage, too many disgruntled people etc. I was hoping to make a real change this year and welcome this opportunity to do so,  Roger Davies  talk 15:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I invite your input on this draft RFC User:Barberio/sandbox -Barberio 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen of trying to getting ArbCom stuff through the community, RFCs are a complete waste of time. What you don't is drive-by supports but people who will hang around and commit the time to effective producing solutions. What is much more effective is a moderated discussion which is moved on from time to time as consensus develops. I'll gladly comment on your draft on that basis.  Roger Davies  talk 20:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So the story now is that we extended the deadlines and expanded the limits because we didn't get enough evidence? Protonk (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you're saying that none of the extensions were prompted by 11th hour requests for more time and space from parties to the case (and the knock-on requests from other parties to rebut)? Protonk (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved your two posts together here. We extended it for nearly a week to get more input. That input duly arrived from various people.  Roger Davies  talk 20:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I provided sample links. There was a lot of bickering and little hard fact. Maybe we should just have closed it then but I expect that would have been controversial too,  Roger Davies  talk 15:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So I guess it was a mistake to just believe that ArbCom knew what was going on, the organized harassment, and trust the committee to handle the case with common sense. I have no beef with Eric Corbett or Sitush, but can you explain why some Arb members voted against site and topic bans for them(citing such excuses and baiting), while supporting site bans for Carol Moore, Neotarf, Tarc(mostly topic ban) and Ryulong? It seems if you are marginally 'baited', not a feminist and are deemed a 'content creator', you get the benefit of the doubt and can do whatever you want without fear of sanction. But if you are relentlessly harassed by an organized, off-site group, your 'civility' is reason enough for a site ban. It seems to me that some members of the committee believe if a non-feminist man defends himself it's ok, but if a woman or a feminist defends herself/himself it's nagging or bickering. Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
What would the ArbCom say to editors who might want to edit about a subject, but don't want to suffer the same fate as those who came before them? Nobody wants to end up banned, or even topic-banned, just for contributing some of their time to try to improve an article. "Anyone can edit" ends up sounding pretty hollow when you follow it with "...except all those people who already tried". Nobody wants to invest time in something that's liable to earn them nothing more than an ArbCom-certified ass-kicking. I think this kind of official abuse chills participation a lot more than you realize. Ryulong invested years of volunteer effort into improving this project, and now he's banned&mdash;exiled, persona non grata, his name forever blackened, an officially designated miscreant. Who else wants to go down that road to nowhere? Everyking (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The vast bulk of the 150 sanctions covered by this case arose from admin action from a dozen or so admins. I guess many of the same admins will now be working on the same issues under discretionary sanctions. Although ArbCom retains jurisdiction over DS, the committee is usually very hands off in he day-to-day operation of it.  Roger Davies  talk 21:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that editors were harassed both onsite and offsite for their participation is probably even more chilling to discourse and participation, especially considering that the editors who were most toxic to the conversation and most directly involved in coordinating offsite harassment received little more than a slap on the wrist for their efforts. -gtrmp (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a great deal of email evidence and almost none of it was about harassment. The one "clear" example of GamerGate brigading turned out to be one of the GaterGaters complaining about having been brigaded himself. There is no reason to suppose that the the people who came to Wikipedia were the same ones who had been involved in the monstrous activity reported in the press. The stuff I have seen was mild (mostly low level vandalism) and certainly nowhere near the levels we see in other problematic topics. As it happens, the harassment allegations mostly surfaced after the proposed decision was posted and were unspecific.  Roger Davies  talk
 * "There is no reason to suppose that the the people who came to Wikipedia were the same ones who had been involved in the monstrous activity reported in the press." ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME WITH THIS. Protonk (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, they're not all GamerGaters for a start. The politics of this - and the allegiances - are very complicated. For instance, there's even a radical feminist group aligned with the GamerGaters (and at one point fundraising for them). So what makes you think that people engaging in extreme activity on one hand are going to get involved with arguing about sources and BLP on the other?  Roger Davies  talk 21:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So is there no reason to suppose it or is it unlikely because some people donated to TFYC and you believe people won't code switch? Because those don't seem relevant at all. I'll bottom line it for you. A party to the case is a moderator' of KiA and you're telling me that there is no evidence of crossover? Or are you making the narrower claim that the people actually calling in bomb threats aren't editing wikipedia (rather than harassing people over twitter, email, etc.)? Because even if that's true it's hardly the same thing. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * During the case, I looked over the private evidence and came to the conclusion that there was evidence that off-site harassment was taking place and a party was involved in it. In response I drafted two FOFs. Due to my personal anxiety and the fact that I felt that I was increasingly on an island in respect to this issue, I retracted them an hour later. I dropped the ball here and I am sorry. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Roger, are you saying that you believe harassment didn't occur, or just that you don't believe that the people who publicly said they were going to carry out harassment were the ones carrying out harassment that exactly matched what they said they were going to do? If it's the former...that's pretty scary, that an arbitrator could have managed to be entirely ignorant of what was going on surrounding a case they were hearing when the facts were to be had by simply googling one or two words. If the latter, it's...well actually, to me that's still pretty scary, and brings to mind suicide pacts. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the whole situation is so complicated, with so many people involved and with their identities so concealed, that we cannot state with any degree of certainty that the individuals who were involved in doxing, swatting, death threats and so on are the same individuals who came onto Wikipedia. Sure, we can speculate ....   Roger Davies  talk 22:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Roger that the evidence (public and private) was severely lacking in this case. I get the sense that a lot of people think more private evidence of harassment was submitted than actually was. The evidence of harassment that we did receive was extremely difficult to connect to specific users, which is largely why I (and presumably others, though I'll let them speak for themselves) chose not to use it heavily in the decision. I do disagree with Roger's implication that those involved in offwiki harrassment can't be supposed to be involved in issues onwiki—there was pretty clear offsite collusion, and it's coy to imply otherwise. I also think that pointing to TFYC is disingenuous and beside the point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, it's impossible for a non-arb to know what private evidence has and hasn't been submitted, especially before the PD is posted. That's not a rejoinder per se but it needs to be said. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, that's largely what I'm trying to say. I think both arbs and non-arbs alike need to remember that—arbitrators can't expect non-arbitrators to submit evidence based on what has and has not already been submitted, and non-arbitrators can't assume that arbitrators have evidence that we're just ignoring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, those 'concealed' identities that had the same damned user names on Wikipedia as they do on Reddit. Or almost every time Loganmac posted on 8chan to organize harassment he started the posts with "Logan here". It takes a real CIA researcher to figure out those identities. And Roger is more than being coy or disingenuous, he's insulting the intelligence of any editor with common sense. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no good solution here, unless the user publishes the connection on-wiki. If we don't make the link, we are accused of ignoring offwiki harassment. If we do make the link, we are accused of enabling joe-jobbing. Short of electing a telepathic to the Committee, we have to try to weigh the two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How on earth was this weighed? By what standard is not blatantly obvious that Loganmac and Logan_mac are the same person. Like seriously? I dont know what private evidence you recieved but surely any even vaguely pertaining to Loganmac would make it blatanly obvious they're the same person. There is literally nothing to weigh here. But if onwiki evidence is what you want I'll give it. Here is Loganmac admitting both the reddit and twitter loganmac accounts are his, note the wording "looked up my twitter and reddit". If that's not enough proof that the reddit account is his (it should be enough proof that the twitter account is), here are tweets (now deleted) of logan admitting he's the reddit moderator. Bosstopher (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you endorse behavior like this as a reason not to participate in mediation? Shii (tock) 17:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Um...yes? Mediation would have been a terrible route for GG, for those reasons and others. Mediation only works under two conditions: 1. Everyone with a stake can be brought to the table. 2. Everyone at the table is willing to reach an agreement. GG by definition fails to meet condition 1, even if you assume that it will meet condition 2. Protonk (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that the Mediation Committee themselves turned down Mediation on the basis that "in light of the number of editors currently actively participating in the discussions at the article talk page who are not listed here, there can be no reasonable hope that any effort here would include enough participants to solve the problems." I would not expect any mediation possible in the face of a campaign creating SPAs and conducting off-site harassment, and the parties that turned down mediation should not be criticised for turning down an impossible method that the mediation committee themselves said would be fruitless. I strongly hope that was not used in the decision making by ArbCom. --Barberio 17:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually cited in the decision. Shii (tock) 17:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just absolutely absurd. Absolutely absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Un-fucking-believable. Protonk (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What's absurd or unbelievable about it? Ryulong's response was super hostile and battleground-y. Or are you suggesting that this would still have been cited as battleground behavior had Ryulong written "I would rather not participate in mediation" rather than "Stop fucking forum shopping"? Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's brash and rude, but it's not wrong, at all. Mediation was destined to fail and did fail, we're here because it failed. And we're also here, funnily enough, because gaters wouldn't stop forum shopping until they got what they wanted. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I seem to have been mistaken about what ArbCom actually cited. My apologies. Still, being wrong about mediation effectiveness is not necessarily against policy. Being brash, rude, and hostile arguably is. Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. My problem is that there are conflicting principles, policies and (frankly) realities here. I think Ryulong is a dick, no doubt. But compared to me he has the patience of a saint. Compare this to the GGTF case where we had a long term editor with serious civility problems being baited by a few other editors. In that case arbcom took pains to note the mitigating circumstances (whatever your opinion of those circumstances is) when determining the remedy. Here, because we refused to consider the impact of off-wiki action the committee apparently felt such a weighing of issues was unnecessary. When we remove from the record the thousands of edits, posts and tweets aimed at Ryulong by a group of people who (let's make no mistake) don't give a shit about wikipedia beyond our popularity and accessibility then yeah, you could come to the conclusion that he's a dick and that's bad so let's ban him. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well. I definitely see your point re. refusing to consider the impact of off-wiki action. Did ArbCom actually say they refused to consider that? I don't recall seeing it but I could easily be mistaken, as we have seen in this very conversation. My impression was that they simply noted the reality that they had no power, really, to do anything about those off-wiki actions. I would appreciate it if you could set me straight if I've gotten it wrong somewhere.
 * That aside, what would have been a fair result re: Ryulong in your estimation? Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So they've said they had no power to stop the harassment, which is largely true. They've also said that they cannot sanction editors on wiki who harass people off wiki (less true, but let's grant it). Neither of those statements means they could not weigh the issue, but it does make weighing the issue incredibly difficult. One of the FoFs notes that "off-wiki coordination" was a problem, but almost none of the other remedies, principles or FoFs grapple with this issue at all. Perhaps there was a spirited debate about how to treat baiting, endless SPAs and harassment with respect to mitigating circumstances, but that debate didn't take place in the open and there's little evidence of it in the eventual decision. One of the principal sources of this harassment was left out of the original proposed decision and then topic banned as an afterthought--otherwise it's pretty much unmentioned. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As a personal view, I agree with Protonk's characterisation in the post above. Arguably more discussion could have occurred openly rather than in private, but numerous case participants also submitted private evidence, or were referred to in other people's private evidence, and it would have been difficult to construct useful public conversations while still respecting these issues. Theres also an annoying reality that some of the case remedies only make sense when the private evidence is considered - without that, it must appear a little mystifying as to how the committee reached its decisions.
 * Having only been here a month I don't know I'd this is public-private evidence split is a commonplace or a particular feature of this case, but I suspect the latter as personal privacy issues were fairly prominent here. --Euryalus (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question (or dodge it respectfully), I don't know for sure. My ad hoc feeling is that most of Ryolung's actual problems come from revert warring over borderline edits. 1RR across the project might have been an effective remedy (the word remedy being crucial here, not punishment). Protonk (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Aha, a point of consensus! If we phrase the complaint as "ArbCom failed to adequately document its deliberations, if any, regarding off-wiki actions concerning parties to the case and the weight, if any, given to these actions in mitigating the sanctions imposed on those parties," I cannot but fully agree. Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, his judgment of the situation wasn't inaccurate in the least. By its nature, mediation doesn't and can't work in a situation where one party isn't a discrete group of users but is instead a semi-disorganized high-turnover group that frequently brings in new participants from the various offsite social networks where said party kaffeeklatsches and occasionally plans out its strategies for (among other things) editing Wikipedia. In such a scenario, mediators can't really interact meaningfully with both parties, and in practice mediation would only serve to effectively restrain the regular users editing on the other side of the issue from said group. -gtrmp (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably helpful to mention again at this stage there weren't two groups, reflecting pro or anti views. There were various blocs reflecting various views, plus a fair number who'd heard about the controversy and were curious. Which made it difficult to identify who was involved with what and what, if any, agenda they had.  Roger Davies  talk 21:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, it seems at least some of your colleagues disagree with you on this point, Roger; DGG says below that he saw this as a two-group situation. In fact, I don't think I've seen any of your colleagues saying that there were multiple groups or blocs. This can sometimes be a challenge for the committee when the person drafting a decision does not interpret the evidence similarly to the others in the committee; every time I've been aware that it has happened, it's usually resulted in an unsatisfactory, overreaching, and drama-inducing result. (And yes, I wound up voting on some of those, and left before required instead of drafting the last decision because I knew it would wind up that way.) I still do not understand why gender was included in the decision, since there really was nothing to do with gender in the case.  Risker (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, to a point. Absent any evidence a discussion happened it might be premature to castigate them for merely not showing their work rather than shirking the assignment. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Protonk (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now this may just be me, but I think its fairly obvious to identify what group a person who is moderator for KotakuinAction and is currently trying to get Jimmy Wales to do an AMA on his subreddit, who posted almost daily in that subreddit disparaging Ryulong while involved in edit conflicts against him bringing the conflict to the eyes of a massive (and angry) audience, and has been banned 24 hours for wikistalking Ryulong, falls under. I'm assuming at least some of this stuff was in the private evidence Ryulong submitted to you? Bosstopher (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that most issues that have come before arb com do involve two sides, and this case was a good example of that (with the usual exceptions and variations), and obvious just from the public evidence. Surely the votes on the PD, let alone the comments here, show that there was  some disagreement about the obviousness of this  among the various members of the committee. But I find it very odd to say that the pro-GG side won the decision, or has unduly influenced the balance of the article. Certainly they tried, but they failed.  DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You may find it odd, but the "pro-GG side" is certainly celebrating the success of their "Operation Five Horseman" (although they only managed to bin 3/5 of their targets). They did take note of, among other things, who voted against the Ryulong ban, and already decided these admins will "have to go" (also here. In their eyes, the "operation" payed off, so expect more of this kind of off-site coordination trying to get rid of disagreeable editors, under whatever pretext comes handy. The ArbCom decision is pointedly neutral, but from the evidence you have reviewed - did you really get the impression that this type of off-wiki coordination and targeting of specific editors on-wiki is a common M.O. on "both sides"? GreggHamster (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would imagine the Arbs, both past and present, would practise as they preach and report all off-wiki harassment to the relevant authorities. As for on-wiki, I didn't cite RtBA's remedies for no reason whatsoever. I will grant to Roger Davies that neither side is a saint, but it's the "pro-" sides that are resorting more to battles by attrition here, and in my mind discretionary sanctions for throwaway users is a complete and phenomenal waste of time. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3
Once again I'm going to ask for input to the draft RfC on community Arbitration Policy Reform since there is an apparent consensus in support of a review of current practice. --Barberio 19:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote above?  Roger Davies  talk 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to draft the RFC; I will be opposing most of it, including especially all of 1 and 2d. The only items I feel I unambiguously support are 2a and 4. TotientDragooned (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact the impetus for the ArbCom (not Wikipedia, ArbCom) statement came from the WMF.  Roger Davies  talk 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On a similar vein, I'm drafting a timeline on the events that happened between the Guardian article and the close of the case, in relation to the case and the press release published here. I expect to have it ready sometime UTC-morrow. L Faraone  23:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If the WMF felt it important to issue a press release, why the hell didn't they do so themselves? In that regard, I think you guys did the best you could, but if what you say is true, Roger, I would say the Foundation basically set you up for a fall. Resolute 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's 50/50, in that the Foundation failed completely but they merely added to the complete failure of ArbCom to grasp the issues concerned. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I think a few of the people in the above discussion (extending through the "arbitrary breaks") would benefit from reading up on the fundamental attribution error and fallacy of composition. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus forming
Just putting this here so we can just drop things when we realise that there's a general consensus around it instead of talking in circles.

First, I think there's a general consensus that the Press Release was a mistake, it's not ArbCom's job to issue press release, and that the statement about the ban not currently passing was unintentionally misleading. Hopefully, the lesson has been learned, and we can all drop this line of debate? --Barberio 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree. The problem is that the Arbcom should not take media perception into account when making its decisions, but *should* take it into account when communicating its decisions. Drafting arbitrators should consciously reflect on the imaging of the case before posting the first decision draft. Much of the content of the press release -- that Arbcom can remedy *only* on-wiki conduct; that it has authority only over conduct matters, and not content; that most of the worst elements of the GamerGate "side" had already been banned or topic-banned, and the article protected by general sanctions; that the committee condemns off-wiki harassment in the strongest possible terms -- could and should have been principles or FoFs of the original case, which would have nipped much of the drama in the bud. Once the negative press began, the right response was to expedite the case, which was already close to being finished, and not waste time on a press release. Finally, I would have been more comfortable if the Arbcom had left writing a press release to the communications professionals at the WMF, *if* a press release was even necessary: WP:DENY is equally effective against trolls in the media as trolls on-wiki. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is useful to ignore the press, entirely. "No comment" never looked flattering. In any case, this is an example of a balanced article (from my cursory read) that was probably helped by the press release, here. There have also been retractions, corrections, and subsequent writings that resulted from both inbound press enquiries and proactive contacts. And as Roger noted, the WMF was involved in the crafting of this document. L Faraone  20:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the informational post (not sure if "press release" is an accurate description) was an ok idea in principle. The main problem is that the post itself could have used another iteration or two of rewriting before publication.  I liked Philippe's version better, for example.  On the other hand, when to hit "send" with things like this is always a dilemma, so I sympathize.  Ultimately though, reaction to this thing seems overblown.  I don't see how it's something other than the usual malcontents making the usual noise. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we also say that there's consensus that there has been general confusion around submitting evidence of off-site harassment, rooted in unclear and inconsistent understanding of what the committee will consider as mitigating circumstances? --Barberio 00:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The committee does not have a formal mandate to consider mitigating circumstances though informally it always will. The issue is that one person's mitigating circumstance is someone else's lame excuse. These are incredibly grey areas and are basically about judgment and common sense,  Roger Davies  talk 09:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're just making excuses because you don't want to take responsibility for being involved in supporting harassment of Wikipedia editors. Silver seren C 09:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll keep this simple. I consider this case result to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, Arbcom failures in memory. I think that the entirety of Arbcom utterly failed in their remit in every possible manner and should be disgraced and ashamed of themselves for, basically, putting out a ruling supporting off-wiki harassment campaigns and direct harassment of Wikipedians. I will not be voting for any of you in any capacity in the next Arbcom election and I hope none of you are reelected to this or any other position of influence ever again. You are a detriment to this encyclopedia and everything it stands for. Silver  seren C 05:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor point, not all the decisions were unanimous. I think it's wrong to characterise everyone as having the same position, which is what you seem to be saying. On the major issue, would you like to see ArbCom mandated to consider off-wiki activities, and if so do you agree that this needs to be clarified to specify the scope within which they can do this? At the moment it isn't mentioned in either Arbitration/Guide to arbitration or Arbitration/Policy. I'm not certain as to how far our role legitimately (at the moment) extends here, and I doubt that I'm the only new arbitrator that is uncertain. I'd probably support an extension into this area but think that it needs to be made formal. Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ummm. Arbcom has frequently taken into consideration off-wiki activities, and has in the past explicitly sanctioned for such activities; less well-known is that it has also elected to either not sanction or lessen sanctions because of off-wiki activities. The committee decides what evidence it will consider in any given case; while off-wiki activity alone would rarely result in an Arbcom action, it has certainly been the main focus in more than one arbcom action, and the Sandifer desysop was pretty much all about off-wiki activity. There is nothing in the policy that specifically excludes review of off-wiki activity; in fact, the "admissibility of evidence" section is deliberately written to allow evidence other than the types enumerated. Risker (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since we have two Arbitration Committee members disagreeing over this, I think that makes it clear enough that there's confusion over evidence handling and what may be submitted. I think this is a clear signal that there needs to be review of this part of the Arbitration Policy. --08:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Barberio
 * No, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just new and still learning. It is at WP:OWH which says it is "admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's apples and oranges, surely? The question is whether evidence of alleged off-wiki activities is persuasive enough to be acted on. And if so, where should the bar be? Balance of probabilities? Clear and compelling? Beyond reasonable doubt? And then we have all the potential implications of the committee WP:OUTING someone to consider ...  Roger Davies  talk 09:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by this statement, and past statements. Could you make a clear statement that sets out your position on submitting evidence of off-wiki harassment to the committee, and if the committee should consider that as mitigating circumstances? You can not blame the community for not submitting evidence on off-wiki harassment, then turn around and raise doubts over if the committee should accept evidence on off-wiki harassment. Again, as I said on the draft RfC, it is not a matter of if mitigating circumstances should be considered... Throughout the history of Wikipedia they have been, it's just they have been considered in wildly variable ways, with little consistency and sometimes in outright contradictory ways. Sometimes within the same case. This is clearly a source of dispute, and producer of inconsistent remedies. --Barberio 09:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the GamerGate nobody asked by email for external harassment to be treated as a mitigating circumstance. And, contra that, we had email evidence that some of those "harassing" (well, "shouting at off-wiki" more realistically) was a part of a two-way slanging match.  Roger Davies  talk 09:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The unfortunate reality is that we can do something to protect people on-wiki (page protection, admins watchlisting, oversighting, etc) but can do nothing at all to protect them off-wiki. That can only be done by either off-wiki site management or by law enforcement. Plus, there is no WP:BADSITES policy.   Roger Davies  talk 09:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, hey, SUCCESS! You've succeeded in having Gamergate go after other Wikipedians now! See here and here. Congrats, Arbcom, you did it! You accomplished your goal of getting more Wikipedians targeted and harassed! I knew you had it in you! Great job, Roger Davies, i'm proud of you. Silver  seren C 09:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me please whether you believe that declaring certain editors "Defenders of the Wiki" or some such, would have reduced or increased the prospect of them being harassed? Hipocrite isn't even mentioned in the decision.  Roger Davies  talk 10:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , hey, Rodger, how do you think that syncs up with 18, exactly? Would you expect any new users to volunteer for a GamerGate ethics review along the lines of the one I'm getting? Let's see - I'm being impersonated on Reddit via some ridiculous false-flag, I'm currently the trending topic on the main GamerGate message board, I have a wife or husband and some number of kids that is greater than zero and less than eight, and GamerGate or those closely connected it it have Swatted people before. But don't worry - it's all justified because I tried to make Ryulong, a decade long contributor here, feel better about his ban by promising to read emails he'd send me and that I'd put articles he cares about on a watchlist. ETHICS! Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Arbcom has made it clear that anyone who tries to defend the Gamergate article or related articles from BLP violations and POV editing is going to be sanctioned. So Gamergate clearly thinks the best method then is to harass anyone whatsoever that is involved in defending the article and then will use the discretionary sanctions against them. Arbcom has already directly shown that it is fine with supporting off-wiki harassment and not editors trying to defend Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 10:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is, and always has been, site policy that people are expected to be restrained and calm, even in the face of provocation. If they can't do that, they are expected to leave the topic to others. Sure, people are cut some slack but nobody, ever, has been given a carte blanche to do whatever they like. ArbCom is prohibited from creating new policy by fiat but if you think the policy should be changed, you're welcome to try doing so.   Roger Davies  talk 10:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your Arbcom speech is as good as always. Deflection of issues, pointing at policies, never taking responsibility. In this case, not caring about harassment of Wikipedians. I guess you'd make a good politician, Roger. And, no, that's not a compliment. I'm done here. I'm going to try and actually help Wikipedia and do what I can to protect and support the editors that you all have abandoned. Silver  seren C 10:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger, I know you are vested in defending your decision, but try to remember that there are wider considerations and you're making public statements. I was unaware that there was a requirement that someone email you to ask for external harassment to be treated as a mitigating circumstance during a case. I assume this is not a formal policy of any kind?
 * Can I get a Yes/No answer on the question "Would you ever consider off-site harassment as a mitigation"? --Barberio 09:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I would (and I have plenty of times in the past). But it all greatly depends on other contributory factors, which cannot easily/sensibly/practically be legislated for. In the real world, it's covered by exercise of discretion.  Roger Davies  talk 09:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that the current level of discretion has resulted in inconsistent, and sometimes even contradictory application of mitigating factors within the same case? --Barberio 10:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As a passing comment, I think its important to acknowledge that any two people can examine evidence in good faith and come to different conclusions as to its value, origins, mitigating factors etc. That's not "inconsistency" so much as a diversity of views. It's one of the reasons why there are fifteen committee members. The committee has certainly taken off-wiki issues into account, on occasion, and where relevant. But the weight given to these off-wiki issues will vary somewhat between committee members, as it should when people are asked to exercise independent judgement. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were just diversity of views between Arbitrators, that'd be one thing, but the problem is that there's a 'diversity' in how cases are actually handled, and the application of remedies. If it were a matter of Arbitrators disagreeing on off-site harrasment being considered, then there would not be so many instances of contradictory remedies, particularly ones within the same case, because they would still be consistent to their own views. And there certainly needs to be a clear guideline for evidence submission, which certainly can't be written off as 'diversity of views' because there needs to be one single standard there or it's not going to work. --Barberio 11:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair points, but I'm not sure they apply. A quantity of off-wiki evidence was provided existed, some of it as mitigation for on-wiki conduct. I bore it in mind when considering the findings and remedies. It was relevant but was not always entirely exculpatory - sometimes there were other conduct factors to consider, and sometimes the off-wiki evidence simply wasn't enough to either impose the sanction some called for, or mitigate a sanction others opposed. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't consider my voting in the case to have shown any great inconsistency. But I accept that that's just my opinion, based on my own assessment of the material presented and the votes cast. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll counter by saying that I believe the Arbcom, overall, did a decent job handling an incredibly difficult case with no obvious best answers. The central question was whether off-wiki misbehavior by one set of parties ever gives carte blanche to the other set of parties to edit-war and tendentiously edit on-wiki. They leaned towards "no," which makes sense to me: if you are being harassed off-wiki, the right response is to disengage, alert the WMF and law enforcement, and ask uninvolved administrators to step in. The wrong response is to entrench yourself in the topic and double-down on on-wiki misbehavior.
 * I was particularly impressed with Roger Davies and Beeblebrox, who cut to the heart of the case without getting distracted by side drama, and hope that Roger will continue to be as decisive and incisive during the rest of his committee tenure. TotientDragooned (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Says the SPA account that hadn't posted more than twice in the past two years and suddenly reactivated to start posting in the Gamergate case. You are the perfect example of the problem. Silver  seren C 05:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * SPA, huh? How many edits of mine do you see in the area of GamerGate, or for that matter gender and sexuality, broadly construed? You must not have checked very carefully ;) And yes, I haven't edited in a while, but when misinformed posts about the arbcom decision started flooding my Facebook news feed I became rather concerned. Now if you have replies other than personal attacks, I'd be happy to read them. TotientDragooned (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

... WP:NPA is still official policy, right? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you characterising as a personal attack exactly, seeing neither you nor TotientDragooned have really justified the question or remark? A more careful review of Silver seren's comment might better clarify what was intended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you or Silver seren could clarify; since 1) my editing history here predates the GamerGate controversy by over five years, and 2) I have never made any edits anywhere near the topic area, and certainly have no plans to go POV-war there now, I'm not sure how to characterize their remark other than as (poorly-researched) ad hominem. That said, I'm not particularly offended and don't need help from the NPA police. TotientDragooned (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I interpreted Silver seren's reply to your comment was that after reading your posting, he made an assessment regarding its (poor) quality before comparing it to your other recent contributions and decision to just post to this case discussion page (after being inactive for so long). I don't know if I necessarily disagree/agree with Silver seren's overall view that you are a perfect example of the problem that the topic area is regularly being subjected to (like a few other areas in this project), but if I were basing it on your last two comments including the unnecessary reference to "NPA police", I'd be inclined to agree. I thought your postings were foolish because you don't seem to read things carefully and/or seem to rely on erroneous/unnecessary assumptions. To clarify, Silver seren simply characterised you as an SPA (which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing anyway); he didn't say anything else. Rather than seek clarification about what sort of SPA, you ask for evidence as to when you have directly contributed to the Gamergate/gender/sexuality topics, suggest he hasn't checked properly (because you apparently assume he called you a Gamergate controversy SPA), and then refer to unspecified "personal attacks" in his comment (even though you were "not particularly offended"). Anyway, enough red herrings please. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I had replied to one of your posts solely to 1) call you an SPA, and 2) call you "a perfect example of [a] problem", wouldn't you some difficulty taking them in good faith? I thought Seren's comment was a clear-cut ad hominem attack but I apologize if I was mistaken. I will disengage now as it seems my contributions here are not welcome. (And in case it wasn't clear, the last sentence of my last post was urging the IP to back off, *not* directed at you or Silver seren). TotientDragooned (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TotientDragooned, I didn't say you shouldn't disagree with Silver seren - just that before you disagree, at least know exactly what it is you're disagreeing with and frame it properly. If you take offence to being called an SPA at all re: any topic, then at least frame your reply to him accordingly rather than asking for evidence as to why you're an SPA in one area which he didn't otherwise specify. And if you aren't genuinely offended, don't make the accusation which will end up turning a molehill into a mountain. To be clear, my criticism of your last couple of comments was not intended to be a reflection of suggesting you are unwelcome to comment at all; it's just a reflection that you can and should take a bit more care when you do comment in future rather than repeating the same issues like you did on these two occasions. (And while I know who you were referring to, it's just as bad if the IP then accused you of making a personal attack by calling it NPA police when there are other ways you can get the point across to it.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have to pluck this out,. You say "nobody asked by email for external harassment to be treated as a mitigating circumstance" first of all, WHAT? If, as you say, arbcom has no policy about mitigating circumstances, how could parties be expected to know that they need to file their evidence under "mitigating circumstances"? Protonk (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, ArbCom policy is "use common sense". There is no reason that mitigating circumstances couldn't be presented now in a request for modification.  Before doing that I suggest showing that evidence to somebody uninvolved to see if they think it would be a good idea to file such a request.  There shouldn't be a flood of frivolous requests, however, ArbCom should entertain legitimate requests to fix errors in decisions. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If "use common sense" were such an easy thing, then ArbCom wouldn't need to exist in the first place.
 * I do think that ArbCom do need an explicit direct mandate to consider mitigating circumstances, in particular off-site attacks. The current position is "we don't but we will, maybe", and we can patently see what this has resulted in. People need to clearly know they can submit evidence of mitigating circumstances, and that evidence will be considered as a part of the process not just on the whim of any particular arbitrator. --Barberio 16:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What I'm "characterizing" as personal attacks:

"You are a detriment to this encyclopedia and everything it stands for." - addressed to all of Arbcom, not justified beyond a personal opinion on the ruling.

"It seems to me that you're just making excuses because you don't want to take responsibility for being involved in supporting harassment of Wikipedia editors." - addressed directly to Roger Davies.

"Congrats, Arbcom, you did it! You accomplished your goal of getting more Wikipedians targeted and harassed! I knew you had it in you! Great job, Roger Davies, i'm proud of you."

"Your Arbcom speech is as good as always. Deflection of issues, pointing at policies, never taking responsibility. In this case, not caring about harassment of Wikipedians. I guess you'd make a good politician, Roger."

"Says the SPA account that hadn't posted more than twice in the past two years and suddenly reactivated to start posting in the Gamergate case. You are the perfect example of the problem."

No "characterization" is necessary, though. It's transparently obvious to any rational reader that these are personal attacks. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm sure Roger (and any other committee member) is perfectly capable of addressing their own NPA concerns. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just one question
For the arbs, can you tell us one thing the committee--not the community, not the parties, not the complexity of the case, the committee--did wrong in this decision? Alternately if you feel the committee did nothing wrong, would you be willing to say that simply and explicitly? Protonk (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, we published the PD onwiki too early. There are other proposals that I think we should have passed and didn't, but that's pretty clear from my votes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we did a lot of things wrong. And I'm thinking of them now, some of which I am sorry to say I failed to note operationally.  I think we should have passed remedy 11, which would have helped admins control conduct within the topic area without as much rigamarole.  Another thing I'm guilty of (and didn't realize as a problem until neck-deep), is that newly-elected arbs likely should not be allowed to participate in a case if their terms begin after the evidence and workshop phases have concluded, particularly on cases that take several days to read.  After this one, I think the system of drafting arbs needs some reform; while a subset is needed to drive the writing of a PD, it allows too much for the rest to vote to take a case, and then forget it exists until a PD is posted.  And I agree with GorillaWarfare, a few more days and a few more eyes on the PD before it was posted would have been very useful here, something that would have likely happened had it not been posted two days earlier than the target date. Courcelles 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't even realise newly-elected arbs got involved in the voting on this case. I would have figured only the arbs who were active at the time of the case's being accepted would vote on it. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with Courcelles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As do I. Courcelles, you say "it allows too much" - not sure what you mean but I get the gist. So far as the new arbs go, there was a big turn over and that would have left at best 6 arbs to vote on the case. Would the community be willing to let us adjust the timetable of cases to better suit the timetable of new arbs coming in? I guess new arbs could be asked if they are willing to commit to a case and start reading the evidence when they are 'inducted'. That would minimise any timetable changes. But it would still mean that cases taken on at the end of the year would take longer to settle. This would probably only be important and major cases such as GamerGate with large numbers of participants and a lot of evidence to read through. I didn't take part because I had no idea before I became an arb what it was all about, and then didn't think I could digest such a large amount of material in an area where I had no background knowledge. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with GW. I think that the committee needs to ask more targeted questions in relation to private evidence; we can't just expect people to send us things and then wonder why the info we would like to see isn't there. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  18:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wrong?" I think that's too declarative. However with all the experience of precisely one month in the Committee, I'd agree some things could have been done better. First, I agree with most of the points Courcelles made, especially the importance of keeping in top of the evidence at an early stage. Second, there should more of a bias towards on-wiki evidence. On a couple of occasions people emailed the committee asking for things to be considered as private evidence or private requests, that had no privacy implications at all. In hindsight they should have been asked to post it on-wiki. Third, I believe the outcome was a good reflection of "the rules" even though I didn't agree with all the remedies that finally passed; but as a statement of the obvious, rules enforcement must be tempered with a view of what's best for the encyclopedia. It's the reason we have IAR. It's part of the reason why there are occasional heated debates over "content contributors" getting free passes. Now perhaps this is not the role of Arbcom, which gets disputes only at their most intractable and where nothing but a rigid rules-based approach will do. And the application of IAR is always controversial, so perhaps a less rules-based outcome would have simply magnified the subsequent drama - it's Arbcom's responsibility to calm disputes, not make them worse. But it's something worth consideration. Just some thoughts - feel free to disagree and/or throw stones. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "rules enforcement must be tempered with what's best for the encyclopedia" – yes, if only ArbCom had considered what's best for the encyclopedia. Banning POV pushing but somewhat civil throwaway accounts who don't agree with the media coverage of their movement or long-standing productive editors whose mistake was to crack under the off- and on-wiki harassment, all in the name of a false impartiality. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No fact-based interpretation of the case could lead to that conclusion. If you think that's what happened, I suggest you read the case and carefully examine the histories of all the parties involved, starting perhaps with the dates they registered their accounts and their block logs. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I join with Courcelles in saying that a significant issue, and always has been, getting enough of the committee to focus far enough in advance to make significant input on a draft. We have so many things happening in so many different areas that this is a systemic, rather than a behavioural, issue. So we tend to firefight as things bubble to the service. The solution to the focusing issue is to draft things in public, or at least workshop them in public before moving to vote. That brings its own problems though ... notably by encouraging people to exert pressure to sway things one way or another. It may also reduce further the number of people prepared to run for ArbCom.  Roger Davies  talk 20:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wrong" is a bit too declarative, I agree, but it would have been nice (bearing in mind that hindsight is always 20:20), that to have had the general remedies like the discretionary sanctions from the get-go, perhaps as a temporary injunction. The community sanctions were something, but ArbCom discretionary sanctions come with broader powers and greater visibility, and they were left in state of limbo while the case rumbled on. That would have allowed misconduct to have been dealt with more rigorously during the case, leaving ArbCom to sort out what's left at a more suitable timescale. Arbitrator participation in the evidence phase (perhaps with arbs going through once all the evidence was complete and asking for clarification/diffs as necessary) would have been nice, as would better clerking to deal with feuding, petty bickering, and personal attacks disguised as evidence or workshop proposals. But big cases like these don't come around very often; had I been an arb (and I'm very grateful that I'm not!), I would have voted differently on a few proposals, but I think the arbs made the best they could of a horrible case. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The point about clerking is one that applies to many cases over the recent years. While much of the conduct during this case was appalling, it's often particularly striking how cases revolving around civility over the past couple of years have always been riddled with PAs and uncivil behaviour, and rarely limited to the accused parties. Just like RFA, too many RFARs and open proceedings are rule-free zones where anything goes. This exacerbates tensions further during the months long cases, and most certainly participates to the establishing of the toxic grudges parties to past cases keep dragging for years, sometimes closer to a decade, after their sanctions expire. Much stricter enforcement of decorum and WP:NPA could help. MLauba (Talk) 23:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the problems we had with this case was that there were just not enough clerks to monitor what was happening. Hence the reason we're trying to recruit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think the problem was more that the clerks were too timid, and don't have (or don't see themselves as having) a strong enough mandate to enforce standards of conduct, with the result that parties can make baseless attacks with impunity. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the committee have a direct mandate to accept and consider evidence of mitigating circumstances?
I think the overwhelming consensus is that evidence of mitigating circumstances should be considered. I see no one above arguing against that. I do see a realm of confusion and inconsistency over how they should do so, and a clear statement that they don't have a mandate to do so right now.

I think that we need to make the small modification to the policy, to grant a direct mandate to consider evidence of mitigating circumstances, including evidence of off-site harassment. This probably shouldn't have needed to be directly said, perhaps it was simply assumed that would happen and everyone would know it would happen as a given. But as I said above you can't depend on "common sense", and it's clear that this isn't working very well at the moment.

So I'm going to present the following question that I think needs to be answered. Should the Arbitration Policy include a direct mandate for the Committee to accept and consider evidence of mitigating circumstances, including off-site harassment? --Barberio 16:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Giant custom-made warning banner notwithstanding, it's fundamentally problematic to demand a vote on a change to a Wikipedia policy without any discussion&mdash;with the exception, of course, of the argument in favor presented by the original proposer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If you want to change policy, do it properly via RFC and with the usual ability to discuss the proposal. Resolute 17:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No NE Ent 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of scope. Please also see Arbitration/Policy.  Risker (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
(And yes, I welcome threaded replies to my statement.)

I think that policy should be clarified in the opposite direction from Barberio's good-faith suggestion above. I understand and sympathize with his suggestion, but in my considered opinion such a policy would have undesired unforeseen consequences. I would suggest the following alternative:


 * No amount of misbehavior (real or imagined) by those on one side of a dispute (on-wiki or off-wiki) justifies or excuses misbehavior by the other side. Editors should disengage if they feel that they are not able to follow Wikipedia's behavioral standards and should resolve disputes using the standard Wikipedia dispute resolution process.

...which I believe to be a clarification of existing policy, not a new policy.. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is community support for strictly enforcing this, and thus restraining ArbCom from ever considering mitigating circumstances, then so be it. I would then expect the ArbCom to be ruthless and strict about user conduct. I look forward to a future where practically everyone who ends up in an arbcom case gets some kind of ban out of it, it'll trim the herd. --Barberio 20:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And to make it explicit. I Support either this or changing policy to better reflect practice. Sure, there may well be side-effects to tying the ArbCom's hands to use strict liability for 3RRs and such when applying remedies, and it'll make being an Admin a much bigger deal, but so be it. --Barberio 20:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (In response to "Should the ArbCom, as Guy Macon suggests, never accept mitigating circumstances, what-so-ever?" question asked below)


 * My statement said absolutely nothing about arbitrator behavior and instead focused on user behavior. This was intentional. So let me address the question you raised above. Consider two cases: in the first case editor A spends a long time patiently staying within Wikipedia behavioral guidelines while being viciously harassed on-wiki and/or off-wiki, then snaps and misbehaves in response. In the second case editor B misbehaves despite his opponents patiently staying withing Wikipedia behavioral guidelines and being nice off-wiki as well. Both editors are doing the wrong thing, but most would agree that B's behavior is worse, and arbitrators are human and would naturally tend to take the harassment of A into consideration.


 * However, this does not imply that there should be any hint in any policy that arbcom should do that. The reason is that any such policy will encourage misbehavior by A -- and will encourage misbehavior by editors who think they are editor A when they really are editor B. There is, however, a solution (one that is already in place) to this problem. Arbcom's job is to prevent, not to punish. It is very likely that A will stop misbehaving with a reminder, and it is likely that B will require a stronger sanction to prevent future misbehavior. Thus the two can be treated differently purely on the basis of preventing probable future problems, without any hint in any policy or any arbcom ruling that A is in any way justified or excused for his misbehavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be a valid point... If not for the problem that it doesn't reflect at all the current circumstances where those who know-the-system, have often been able to claim mitigating circumstances, and point to their "good works" on the wiki in order to avoid bans on civility and conduct issues. In theory, yes, possibly adding language about it might lead more people to try to game the system. But not much more than already do so. And without clear guidelines, it does look a lot like those who try to game the system have a better chance under the current practice. --Barberio 23:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the existing guidelines are unclear or that arbcom is not following them. As suggested elsewhere, perhaps you should start over with a specific example that you believe shows the problem that you believe exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Request to Roger Davies
Since you strongly objected to an RfC process, I attempted to implement a "directed discussion on a single topic" above. It was a very very narrow question, with an attempt at preventing threaded slanging matches and "point of order!" objections. Roadblocks are already being thrown up to that. I'm at a loss as to what the "right" way is, since no matter what it appears someone is going to step in and drag the whole thing down crying "This is the wrong way to go about this!".

So I'm going to put the whole thing in your lap. I appoint you chief in charge of sorting out this mess, or chiding the ArbCom into appointing someone to do it. Reform is wanted, you said you want reform. You're in a position to direct people to make a civil attempt at discussing reform. And at the moment the only way this process is going to get started at all is from someone within the committee starting it and warning people off from being disruptive and wiki-lawyering it into oblivion. --Barberio 18:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And yes, reform is absolutely needed for one reason...
 * Current practice is that ArbCom members may consider mitigating circumstances resulting from personal attacks, and this has been a very long standing practice.
 * It's possible to have a strict reading of the current policy that ArbCom members should never consider mitigating circumstances resulting from personal attacks.
 * This conflict must be resolved. But no one seems to actually want to resolve it by making policy match practice, and to be frank I'm pretty sure no one who made their practice match the "strict" reading of policy would ever get a second term in ArbCom. So what are we going to do about it? For myself, I'm growing quickly bored of being told what the "wrong" ways are for the community to make what appears a pretty simple decision.Barberio 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going say much other than to offer an opinion. I' don't think that freshly minted policy that flatly contradicts WP:DR and offers endless opportunities to argue over was mitigating circumstances are and what constitutes off-wiki harassment is a constructive way forward. I'd like to see a more streamlined and more focused process (though I don't know how to achieve it); more realistic expectations of what ArbCom can actually do; and found ways to reduce ripples from disputes spreading throughout the community. There's an analogy with WP:RFA here: there's wide consensus that arbitration isn't perfect but little consensus about how to fix it.  Roger Davies  talk 19:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbitration has absolutely nothing to do with arbitration as the word is commonly understood in the real world, that's the fundamental problem. All it has to do with is handing out sanctions. Eric   Corbett  19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. Complete misnomer,  Roger Davies  talk 20:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe ArbCom should be renamed "Conduct Review Committee", "Disciplinary Board" or some such. Andreas JN 466 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:DR that directly conflicts with current practice of allowing consideration of mitigating circumstances conflicts. The phrasing used there is "In all cases, and even in the face of serious misconduct, please try to act in a professional and polite manner.", and "arbitration may result in a number of serious consequences up to totally banning someone from editing" (emphasis mine).
 * Again, there is a clear conflict between policy as written, and what the actual practice of the ArbCom has been. Can you give a clear yes/no answer... Should the ArbCom, as Guy Macon suggests, never accept mitigating circumstances, what-so-ever? --Barberio 19:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Barberio. What is a mitigating factor? On one hand, if someone says "I'm really sorry. I got sucked into something and completely lost my cool. I won't do it again and will move away from the topic", that will attract almost universal sympathy. Unless it's the second or third time they've done it. On the other hand, if someone says "I did bad stuff but I don't care because I was responding to equally bad stuff, and I will continue to fight my corner on-wiki" it's a whole different can of worms. Policy on this clear: read WP:DISENGAGE.  Roger Davies  talk 20:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See, if you just alter the phrasing of those two statements, then you have a nice clear and bright guideline for Arbitrators on how to accept mitigating circumstances. All you have to do is draft it, have it accepted by enough other Arbs, and publish it as a guideline, then see if that standard has community support. Albeit I think you're confusing "move away from the dispute" with "move away from the topic", we do not want a wikipedia where a single moment's of incivility results in an automatic broad-scoped topic ban. --Barberio 22:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's sample language based on your comment - "Where editors formerly in good standing have provided evidence of mitigating circumstances, and accept that they failed to uphold conduct standards, the Arbitration committee may issue a caution for their conduct." Possibly with additional language such as "Evidence for any mitigating circumstances must be provided to the Committee.". This seems a non-contraversial reflection of practice, and provides a nice clear guideline for ArbCom and the Community. --Barberio 22:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick revision "Where editors formerly in good standing have provided evidence of mitigating circumstances, and accept that they failed to uphold conduct standards, the Arbitration committee may take that into consideration. Mitigating circumstances will not be considered without evidence supporting it, and giving a recorded commitment to good behaviour. Evidence for any mitigating circumstances must be provided to the Committee."
 * As it stands, ArbCom basically have a "double secret probation" system, where someone might get mitigating circumstances. But then that hangs over them as a virtual suspended sentence if they ever end up back in arbitration. But this isn't written down anywhere, and it's hopelessly unclear how it's supposed to work.
 * This is strongly why people got upset about the Ryulong ban, because it doesn't seem warented in sole reference to the case in isolation. So if you don't know that Ryulong has basically been on "double secret probation" for years, it looks like ArbCom came down on him like a ton of bricks, and sent very bad signals about off-wiki harassment campaigns. And this is probably going to keep happening for as long as the "double secret probation" undocumented pseudo-policy. --Barberio 12:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break the Nth

 * You said you want a "directed discussion on a single topic". But you put up a banner saying no threaded discussion, just statements of support or opposition. That's not discussion. What do you think justifies misbehavior, and what kind of misbehavior does it justify? Answers to those questions might help others understand what you are trying to achieve. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Roger wanted that, after I tried to draft a more open ended RfC. And "Make your own statements" was "make your own statements". If anyone wanted to propose something else, they could do so in their own sub-heading, I just wanted to limit that sub-heading to that question so it wouldn't end up a free-wheeling debate. --Barberio 19:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And watch as we get bogged down in a debate over painting the bikeshed rather than adressing the actual issue of when/if/how ArbCom should consider mitigating circumstances, and that they already do so despite there not being a clear remit for it and some people thinking they should be explicitly barred from doing so. --Barberio 19:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Barberio, if you must: Finally, I'll tell you right out I sincerely believe you're wasting your time because I don't think you'll get the necessary one hundred supports. (And be prepared for pointless haggling over what the "good standing" in the linked policy actually means.) NE Ent 20:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Create Requests for comment/PetitionForArbComPolicyAmendment. Reference Arbitration/Policy. Fill in as desired.
 * Stick RFC tag on it, and request listing on MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details.
 * Don't try to make "rules" about people can comment. As you've seen, those don't work.
 * Thank you for this, but the only way to get to the hundred supports for amendment, is to work out the best change to suggest before hand. Your suggestion would in fact, be one more of those "Wrong ways to change policy". --Barberio 20:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Arbcom can and always has taken mitigating circumstances into account, so the suggested amendment seems like unnecessary bureaucracy and instruction creep. If there's a particular editor who you think got a bad rap, it would be more informative if you named the editor and commented on the specific issue, instead of going off on flights of abstraction about policy changes.  50.0.205.75 (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this practice is not reflected in policy, and it's causing a great deal of confusion with some people interpreting current stated policy as saying Arbitrators should never consider mitigating circumstances and confusion over if evidence of mitigating circumstances will be accepted. This also means that yes, there are currently people who act inappropriately because they assume they'll receive more leniency from ArbCom than they actually would. Leaving it this unclear is not less bureaucracy, it's just hidden and unclear bureaucracy.
 * As an aside, I've very rarely seen anyone argue "instruction creep" on wiki when it's not been the case that the practice required knowing all the stuff that the instructions would contain, but for some reason people strongly objecting to writing those instructions down. --Barberio 11:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In my experience [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=NE+Ent&project=en.wikipedia.org], which includes 1,000 WP:WQA and 2,500 WP:ANI contributions, well intentioned efforts to clarify practice do not work because more words on policy pages simply lead to more confirmation bias driven out-of-context cherry-picking of phrases and wiki-lawyering. It is the principles that ultimately matter, not the nuts and bolts. By definition, any thing that ends up at arbcom is of sufficient nuance and complexity that the community has been unable to resolve it using boilerplate application of existing policy. Additionally, that also implies some non-trivial portion of the community is always going to be unhappy with some or all of the committee's final decision. What's of primary importance is not the the committee makes perfect decisions so much as they make closure. NE Ent 13:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the mistake is in thinking that wiki-lawyering isn't already happening. It's just happening with the people who know the "unwritten" rules. So we get to the point where an editor who is well known to have conduct problems has been able to avoid remedy for a long time by knowing how to claim "mitigating-circumstances", and when they finally get sanctioned it happens in a high profile case and sends entirely the wrong message to the community. Unwritten rules are just as much subject to abuse as written ones, it's just much much harder to identify and avoid that abuse with unwritten rules.
 * And yes, the principles are what matters... But that's the point that is entirely unclear. What are ArbCom's principles in regard to considering mitigating-circumstances? I've already outlined phrasing that appears to cover the current practice and makes it clear what the principles are, but the principles need to be stated not just assumed to be understood by the community. At the moment all that happens is people point to WP:DR and assume that you can then infer what the practice and principles are from there. Which is problematic because people can have good faith disagreements as to what principles you can infer about mitigating circumstances from those more general policies. --Barberio 14:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Barberio, could you give a concrete example, of how you think this case would have gone differently if your amendment had been in place? Is this about Ryulong, i.e. you think he got banned because circumstances weren't considered enough?  Is that because you think there is some evidence he could have presented but didn't, that arbcom might have considered?  What evidence is that?  Or is it about someone else--same questions?  Or are you saying he (or whoever) would have conducted themselves differently outside the case, and avoided getting in trouble in the first place?  I too was a bit surprised about Ryulong's siteban, but I didn't examine the case that closely.  I know Ryulong had lots of past blocks, but I thought they were mostly over minor nuisance behaviour (low level edit wars) rather than the more evil or destructive types of conduct that damage the project a lot more.  50.0.205.75 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated than that.
 * I think Ryulong looked at the way ArbCom have acted in the past, including cases they were involved with, and saw a wide scope of practically unlimited "extenuating circumstances" that they could claim, backed up with their position as an editor with lots of "high-value" contributions. Because when Ryulong looked at how it was all working in practice, they concluded that it wasn't conduct that mattered so much as 'contribution'. Ryulong was taking advantage of the system as they saw it, and so continued as they were, never really changing.
 * The problem comes when we hit a really high profile case, and that's the one that Ryulong finally exceeds the allotment of "extenuating circumstances" ArbCom were willing to give. Combine that with a fundamental misunderstanding that it's the weight of their contributions that matter when asking for mitigation, not evidence they need to provide of harassment they've received, and much of that evidence never gets submitted. So we get a "surprise" ban, that's really the suspended sentence bans from lots of prior mis-conduct.
 * But because this was a "double secret probation", under unwritten rules of how "extenuating circumstances" consideration works, the following results:
 * People think the ban is solely about Ryulong's conduct in this case, get confused and offended because it doesn't appear waranted, and in isolation there was a huge case for "extenuating circumstances" due to the coordinated off-wiki campaign.
 * People get angry, and the impression taken away is that you can get banned if you lose your cool. This causes a chilling effect in this area.
 * What's worse, it leaves a signal that the harassment campaign scored a hit on a target. As we've seen, this has already spawned people organising to attack the editors seen as "taking over" from Ryulong.
 * There's absolutely no chance of the Press reporting well on this, because how can they possibly understand the reasoning used here when it's entirely undocumented. Which leads to reporting assuming bias.
 * These are all the negative effects from having an undocumented, not very well understood process for considering "extenuating circumstances", that is generally conducted under the table, and works on the basis that everyone assumes everyone else knows how the system is meant to work. --Barberio 17:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm still not understanding this:
 * The FoF explicitly mentions Ryulong's past problems so it's clear that Ryulong's ban wasn't purely from the current case. Considering past issues is a standard arbcom practice (many case decisions explicitly include a recidivism principle) and I think most regulars here are used to that.  It's not "double secret probation".
 * Similarly I don't take from Ryulong's ban that regular contributors can get banned for isolated occurrences of losing their cool. My reading from the FoF's explicit reference to Ryulong's past history is "if you have a lot of past blocks and sanctions, then edit extra carefully" which seems like good advice for anyone.  So I don't find your first two bullet points persuasive.  I'd like the project to forgive ancient offenses more than it currently does, but some of Ryulong's blocks were recent rather than ancient.
 * I think the press can understand the concept "this guy acted bad under circumstances where we might have let him off if it was the first time, but he's done similar bad stuff about a billion other times in situations where he had no such excuse, so we decided enough was enough".
 * The issue of harassers scoring a victory is more relevant, and if I agree this was a bad outcome, I see multiple possible interpretations:
 * Arbcom saw this too and it would have preferred to have gone easier on Ryulong, but was constrained by policy from following its judgement, so policy should be relaxed (per your amendment) by giving arbcom more freedom to consider circumstances. I don't think this is what happened, since after all, people were surprised by the ban.
 * Arbcom was aware of the harassment and could have chosen lenience towards Ryulong, but its judgement after balancing all factors was to ban him anyway per something like WP:NOTTHEM. Therefore you want to change policy to override arbcom's judgement (i.e. your amendment is intended to mandate more weight on circumstances, thereby constraining arbcom more rather than less).
 * Arbcom balanced all the factors and applied its best judgement per its existing authority, but reached the wrong conclusion, and you think it should have weighed things differently based on the subtleties of the specific case without mandating a different process. Stuff like that happens all the time and when it does, it's better to contribute feedback about the specific decision, rather than go into "legislator" mode (remember NOTSTATUTE) and take flight into generalities.
 * Arbcom was unaware of the harassment and would plausibly have reached a different decision if only Ryulong had thought of telling them about it, so you want to change policy to alert people like Ryulong to make more noise about such issues. I think Arbcom is observant enough to have seen all the stuff that the rest of us (except those with private or offsite knowledge) saw, so it's a question of how much weight they gave it rather than whether they were aware.  In any case, you or anyone else could have advised Ryulong to write more evidence, without any policy change being needed.
 * Arbcom knew about the harassment but couldn't consider it because it wasn't formally presented at /Evidence. That would be pure BURO and I hope we haven't degenerated that much yet.

I still don't know which of these (or something else) you mean. In other words I appreciate the partial clarification but I'm still confused about what you're trying to do. Particularly I haven't figured out whether you are trying to constrain arbcom more rather than less. I generally prefer fewer constraints, with the corrective mechanism for poor decisions being editor feedback and possibly electing different arbitrators in future elections. If your intention is to relax constraints, it's generally better to do that by deleting the existing language from policy pages that describes or implies the constraints, rather than adding more. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ArbCom *was* aware of the harassment. As I said above, they did consider restricting him to 1RR as a final chance, but after a few arbitrators found that there was discussion off-wiki on how to use the 1RR to continue their harassment of Ryulong, they switched back to a siteban, since it would have been unlikely that Ryulong would have upheld 1RR, and even if he did he would have to contend with even more harassment. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 20:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember that now. I still don't see what Barberio is so worked up about and I had to think through all those possibilities to try to understand.  I can see why 1RR for Ryulong wasn't workable, so I could have accepted looking the other way or imposing a shorter (1-3 months) block as possible alternatives to the long term site ban.  I saw Ryulong as a persistent problem user but not that bad of one on the scale of things (that's re his overall history; I haven't tried to understand what he did in the current case).  On the other hand I don't think many saw him as a really valuable contributor.  E.g., the usual defenders of Giano/Malleus/etc. haven't been speaking up for him. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused as to how "edit a page, knowing that a specific editor won't be allowed to revert your change more than once" is supposed to constitute "harassment". If the edit message contains abuse, there's already policy to handle that. If it doesn't, then we can split into exactly two more cases: the edit is legitimate - in which case there's no reasonable argument that any offense was committed - or it isn't - in which case there are still N-1 editors around to revert it. I would think that the natural response of a good-faith editor, having been sanctioned with 1RR, would be to remove certain pages from their watchlist if they'd had issues before, so as not risk getting emotionally involved with someone who could very well still be acting in good faith.
 * To my mind, it's absurd that certain specific changes to Wikipedia would be automatically construed as spiteful to Ryulong, simply because of the history of the pages being edited. I mean, if you're going to argue that, aren't you directly implying previous WP:OWNership by Ryulong? The guy's already banned, no need to pile on like that.... I mean, it's possible that some of the would-be "harassers" believe in such ownership, but they aren't claiming that, so why legitimize the claim by creating drama around the edits, when they could be evaluated tabula rasa? 76.64.33.14 (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Personnel changes in the Oversight team

 * Original announcement

New arbitration clerk trainees

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

 * Original announcement

How are admins supposed to determine whether there have been 500 edits? Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One method would be to click on his contributions page, click on "last 500," and see if the 500 edits extend back prior to the date of the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The only way I know of to get an actually accurate edit count is the CentralAuth. The edit count at the time the motion was passed (8,910) is noted under the motion, and when the CentralAuth reads 9,410 that condition will have expired.  (Various labs tools give inflated numbers, the centralauth is the only accurate counter I know of.) Courcelles 16:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione closed

 * Original announcement

I've never quite understood: what's the point of topicbanning someone who's also being sitebanned indefinitely? Nyttend (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Because the siteban might be overturned without overturning the topic ban? A topic ban might even make it more likely for the siteban to be overturned. --Guy Macon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1 closed

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review closed

 * Original announcement

The Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes page hasn't been edited since July. When a remedy is repealed, modified, etc., is it standard for someone to update the original page? I hope this consists of a little note on 1.1, basically "no longer in force; see 2015 modification" with a section at the bottom of the page consisting of this newly announced update. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both that and Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing need to be updated. I'll ping the clerks. Courcelles (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad, done. Thanks for noticing so quickly. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 21:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This fixes a situation that needed to be fixed. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed

 * Original announcement

ARCA archives
Where are closed ARCA discussions archived? Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The most recently closed one has been archived at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Bosstopher (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've received a number of queries off-wiki about why the discussion suddenly vanished. Thanks for the pointer. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

New trainee clerk

 * Original announcement

2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

 * Original announcement

Well done to those appointed, and good luck. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good group! The cream always rises. S warm   we ♥ our hive  17:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped

 * Original announcement


 * Good outcome. Totally unexceptable behaviour. Bring on the next one.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm I think you mean "unacceptable". I think he had had enough, and decided upon something similar to "death by admin". DS if you're out there I wish you all the best, although we never crossed paths. Lugnuts, is there any reason you want less admins? Just curious really... --Mrjulesd  (talk)  18:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand he exploded over defending me. (People die, and we fight over hidden text.) I take the blame. - I am on a voluntary 1RR and try to stick to two comments, - If a few more people did that, we would need fewer admins. How about a rule like that for certain topics, instead of sanctions which come too late anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm I think you mean "fewer" not less... :D No, I just want to weed out the bad ones. Anyone remember Dangerous Panda? No, me neither.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unexceptable: "When a statement or question cannot be contradicted with the word 'except'". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am still trying to understand why anyone would walk the gauntlet to become an admin. I could see myself quietly working away at some of our backlogs, but I certainly wouldn't go through that in order to be able to help out. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Hawkeye hah hah. @Guy is RfA that bad? I think you'd probably get through. So if nobody likes you here, I would just think nothing had changed. In fact maybe I'll try, and fail like WP:NOTYET or WP:NOTEVER hah --Mrjulesd  (talk)  21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Last year we had two editors quit for good after a failed RfA, but none so far this year. About a third of desysopped admins quit. Dreadstar and Wifione make two so far this year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The sad part is that I am pretty sure that I could pass an RfA with flying colors by doing the following:
 * Stop participating in any conversation related to policy or user behavior.
 * Spend 50% of my time building high-quality content on obscure pages that pretty much nobody edits.
 * Spend the other 50% of my time welcoming new users, fixing typos, reformatting references and other useful but noncontroversial activities that keep the edit counter rapidly incrementing.
 * If anyone disagrees with any of my edits for any reason, abandon that page forever and pick another.
 * Continue this pattern for over a year.
 * In other words, stop doing anything that resembles the tasks that administrators are needed for.
 * My motto would be You can soar with the eagles if you want to, but those of us who run with the weasels never get sucked into jet engines." --Guy Macon (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, most, if not all of WP's admins will wise up soon and quit so we can hasten either the demise of this experiement, or getting some outside intervention to get its problems fixed. Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Er,, Wifione didn't 'quit'. He was banned indefinitely.  Speaking generally and without reference to specific editors, it's also not unheard of (or particularly uncommon) for former admins to declare a retirement and subsequently return to the project&mdash;before or after they put down their tools.  Sometimes some time away to recharge intellectually and emotionally is helpful.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Guy I like the motto. Well I won't comment anymore on your admin possibilities (mainly in case I'm wrong), but I must say I'm surprised by the people who quit after a failed RfA. I think that if you went for it, you'd have to be prepared that there was a definite chance you were going to come in for some major criticism, which might not be fair at all. I'm quite surprised that some aren't prepared for this, as it's a common occurence. Presumably they didn't realize this, or just didn't think it would happen to them. --Mrjulesd (talk)  00:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to reblock } Guy (Help!) 23:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Clerk note: moved from noticeboard by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Given [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=JzG&group=&limit=1], why is JzG talking instead of acting? NE Ent 00:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not always wise for a given admin to act, depending on what definition of "involved" prevails during a given week. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And if I had, I have no doubt that this, too, would have been raised by one or other of the anti-admin crusaders. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reblocked for 26 days, roughly the original duration.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what was wrong with Dreadstar's unblock of MB. Dreadstar had lifted the topic ban that MB was blocked for, so leaving the block in place is just bureaucracy. Dreadstar then asked the blocking admin to lift the block, waited a while with no response, then lifted the block himself. The blocking admin's user talk says in bold red letters at the top of the page: "Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it." The rationale for the block was the topic ban, which no longer applied. So point 3 of Dreadstar's desysop rationale mystified me a little. It might have been more logical to stay with just two. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * MB is unblocked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Argentine History February 2015

 * Original discussion

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others

 * Original announcement

Temporary injunction regarding open OccultZone and others arbitration case

 * Original announcement


 * If possible, can someone have a look at the edits made by OccultZone today in the SPI area, in particular, the edits (and allegations made) at Sockpuppet investigations/Sonic2030. There's an element of seeking administrator attention, the SPI case is connected with the Arbitration Request, and we have OccultZone accusing another party to the Arbitration request of wikihounding. Nick (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AntonioMartin desysopped

 * Original announcement


 * Was there a CU or was it just based on behavioral evidence? § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a CU. Both the CU result and the behaviour lined up. Courcelles (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, for this. The opinion at ANI is running strongly in the direction that this was the correct call. --IJBall (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, a good, timely action. Thanks all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously a good call, but I am left to wonder if it isn't time for a more comprehensive review of admins who got appointed in the "anything goes" era. When this admin was sysopped in 2003, he had to have it explained to him what an admin even does in the middle of his own RFA, which was attended by about five users. These semi-active admins who got in 8-12 years ago have been a persistent problem for some time now. There's not all that many of them left due to retirements, removal for inactivitry, and stuff like this. I'm not proposing a wholesale culling of all of them, but I do think a closer look is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Should there be "term limits" on admins? That might go a ways towards fixing this kind of problem. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've thought for quite a while that adminshipship should be for a fixed period of time, with a renewal vote required to go on to the next time period - however, to avoid the obvious problems inherent in a renewal vote,, it should be heavily biased in favor of renewal, so that, say, a thirty or forty percent vote would be sufficient. BMK (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the answer. RFA standards got much higher by 2007 or so, and we shouldn't fire people from an unpaid job if they are actually doing it well. I think the problem stems from the fact that it truly was "no big deal" way back then. That changed, but the "no big deal" admins remained. Some of them never awakened to the new realities of what the community expects from admins. (I was personally shocked to discover the very admin who is the subject of this thread was an admin whe I spoke to them two years ago about the appropriateness of having the phrase "piss on the Queen's face" in their signature. I shouldn't have to explain that to anyone, let alone someone who at that point had been an admin for over a decade.) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just proposed almost exactly this at AN/I. A review of pre-2007 admins could be a good idea in my opinion. Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who favors data-driven policy initiatives, I would have to ask&mdash;is the timewasting, vitriol, and disruption that would accompany such a process actually justified by evidence? Yes, AntonioMartin's RfA was way back in the early mists of time, but looking at other recent desysoppings/resignations a patten of 'old' accounts isn't readily apparent.
 * Dreadstar, desysopped in March 2015, passed RfA in 2007.
 * Wifione, desysopped in February 2015, passed RfA in 2010.
 * Secret, desysopped in December 2014, passed RfA in 2013.
 * DangerousPanda, desysopped in December 2014, passed RfA in 2010.
 * Hahc21, resigned under a cloud in December 2014, passed RfA in March 2014.
 * Based on the tables at WP:FORMER, AntonioMartin seems to be the only pre-2007 admin desysopped (or forced to resign) in the last six months. And honestly, looking back on my 2005 RfA, I hardly think 60 voters constitutes a wink and a nod or a lack of community scrutiny. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the idea is that this would be an undertaking to discover admins which maybe should be desysopped but haven't because no one has noticed. These admins all did noticeable things that brought along their desysopping. I agree that 60 users is good, but the primary concern seems to be that no matter how many users elected an admin, if they were elected as far back as 10 years ago and haven't been very active since, it seems reasonable that they may not be using their tools in the way the community expects. And as I said at AN/I, this doesn't need to be an arduous process for the admins who are obviously still using their tools in a sensible manner. Sam Walton (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How does one become "an admin who should be desysopped, but haven't because no one has noticed"? If they're doing something wrong, someone will notice.  If they're not doing something wrong, wouldn't it make sense to leave them alone? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a simple review show exactly that?... I wouldn't expect a review to uncover many more cases like this one. But even if there are only 1 or 2, and if such a review could be non-invasive to the rest, a review like this might be something worth considering. --IJBall (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Floquenbeam, I think of a long-time admin I had never encountered before who came to this noticeboard a while ago and decided to edit the discretionary sanctions page as if it was a regular article. He seemed surprised to find out that you can't simply rewrite arbitration policy pages to what you think they should say. I'm a pretty new editor and I still come across a few admins who don't know how some basic areas (deletion policies, article creation, etc.) work. It's not many but they are out there. They often haven't edited in a while but they return to Wikipedia and are very rusty as far as policy goes. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Something like this would need a RFC, and given how long it took to get a generous inactivity criterion to be a reason for desysop, I don't think it would pass. But that being said, anybody can go through logs, find bad actions, and bring it to the attention of those admins. Also, I think that a blanket reconfirmation would result in a lot of unnecessary reconfirmations: what about pre-2007 admins who went on to be crats, or ArbCom members, or functionaries, or stewards, or CU/OS on other wikis, etc.? --Rschen7754 01:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's amusing how the sock account that ultimately resulted on his desysoping was created exactly 1 year from today. --damiens.rf 19:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RE "amusing" - I suggest a little less of gravedancing, please. Kraxler (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If the Committee is inclined to say, was the investigation provoked by the recent AN/I thread, or related to it in some way? BMK (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I first CU'ed Le Pato Frances very early in the morning of 24 May (UTC) as it was quite obvious from the two most recent edits that the account was not a legitimate seven edit account. The rest of the level II process, from sending a request for explanation to AntonioMartin, to receiving his reply, and then voting took until today. Courcelles (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BMK (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * While Tenof All's statistics are interesting, I think they do not show the full picture. The problem as I see it is the small group of old-school admins who just barely use admin tools at all. So, when they do make a really bad call, everyone says "that's bad, but they haven't made a habit of it and they've been an admin for so long so that's that." I think if it seems clear that an admin is only using their tools enough to keep their grip on them, they aren't really an admin at all, they just don't want to give up their cool extra buttons even though they have long-since stopped being any help with the neverending backlog of administrative tasks.
 * I do share the concern that a review process could turn into a wirchunt, which isn't in anyone's best interest, and would only support such a review if it were done very, very carefully, slowly, and deliberately. How we do that, I'm not so sure right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't thought about this at length but I think we could avoid reviewing most admins by a simple 'more than X actions per year' filter. I think it's safe to assume that if an admin has been making a large amount of admin actions, someone would notice them making bad decisions. Additionally we could have a first round where users are only asked to assess whether a given admin warrants further investigation or if it's obvious that they're doing fine. I'm not sure how to avoid the further processes making the same mistakes as WP:RFC/U though. Sam Walton (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a ten year admin, I'm admittedly a little biased here. But I do think maybe the inactivity thresholds are too lax.  Using admin actions specifically would flag both inactive editors who check in once every three years to keep the tools and active editors who have the tools but don't use them.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. Now that auto-desysoping seems to have gotten past the controversial phase, it's probably a good idea to take another look at the parameters used. BMK (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. What constitutes an "Active" Admin in terms of List of administrators/Active is far too low a threshold. (See, also, somewhat related discussion here...) --IJBall (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, too. It should take more than one edit every three years to retain the tools. But I think I have talked about this before on other noticeboards. Liz  Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to invite any users skeptical of the above proposals to take a look through Successful_requests_for_adminship/2003 and Successful_requests_for_adminship/2004 and look at the activity of some of the users there who are still admins. It didn't take me long to find a handful who have made the bare minimum of edits over the past years yet still have admin rights. Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be a more stringent activity requirement. Say, a minimum of 500 edits per year and 100 logged admin actions. I don't think that would be hard to meet for any active admin. I mean we require 500 edits to use the Gamergate talk page now, apparently. Those who don't meet it would be desysopped as they are now for inactivity, and may regain the tools as usual by requesting it at the 'crat noticeboard assuming not a lot of time has passed, or an RFA otherwise. This would go a long way towards ensuring all admins are up to date in most policy areas. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at the Idea Lab regarding the above topics to see if we can come to some agreement on the actions which might be suitable before starting a proper RfC. Sam Walton (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 100 admin actions in the last year is more than you'd think. Only 364 admins meet that standard, nearly 1000 would have to be desysopped under that proposal.  Hut 8.5  21:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. At minimum I'd like to see the requirement be extended to one edit and one admin action per year, but I can't feasibly see me supporting anything more than 20 admin actions minimum. Sam Walton (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably something between 1 Admin tool use per month and 100 per year would probably be in the ballpark then... But we should probably take this discussion to Sam Walton's Idea Lab topic... --IJBall (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That stats page is scary. I typically make at least a hundred admin actions a day while I'm active at all, but until a couple minutes ago, I wouldn't have thought I'd be even in the top half of admins by activity. —Cryptic 21:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That list is quite shocking. I'm quite disengaged these days and I'm still 130th with 919 actions in a year. Jeeze we need to find new admins not get rid of the ones we have. Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I also find it shocking, though perhaps for different reasons. And as long as admins continue to fight tooth and nail against any proposal for community de-adminship, as we saw in the failed 2010 WP:CDA proposal, or anything progressive such as de-bundling the tool kit or admin term limits, you are going to have a situation where the community is going to be reluctant to grant the tools. The recent revelations of corrupt admins, including this case, hardly inspires confidence to create more lifetime admins. I thank ArbCom for their prompt action in this case, but my perception, rightly or wrongly, is that it's not nearly enough, because it actually took this admin clumsily socking at ANI before anything got done. Jus  da  fax   22:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 4000 or so engaged editors making more than 100 edits a month, and fewer than 600 active admins (using the very generous standard currently used on the active admins list). Presumably, in any reasonably democratic process the views of the larger community ought to be able to win out.  I agree that the community has failed to find solutions to a number of these long-standing problems, but I disagree with suggesting that the entrenched admins are the main reason for a lack of a way forward.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I find these stats amazing. They are cumulative, right? If so, there are 471 "active" admins who have made 0 admin actions. Ever! None! And even more who have only made 1 admin action in their time on Wikipedia. This is crazy, why do they have the tools? Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's for the last year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Those zero action admins include (a foundation employee),  (an arb from last term),  (a content worker),  (a content expert),  (a content creator/expert),  (a bot op),  (a foundation employee), and  (a content worker). This is just the names that stood out to me at first glance. I would oppose yanking the bits of any of these people because they do not meet some arbitrary standard when they are active members of the community. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. How do I quit? I should hope people would have better things to do with their time around here than even have this discussion. What exactly is it supposed to accomplish? Admin tools aren't a finite resource like bars of gold. I have six books to edit in the upcoming year and zero interest in keeping track of when I do and do not use the tools, even if giving them up means I'll never again even have the option of helping with them should a need arise. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't quit. But I endorse the rest of your comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are we giving Admin privileges in perpetuity? Why do people who have moved back to content creation, or who have important real-world priorities, need to continue to have Admin privileges? (Especially when they can easily ask to have Admin privileges reinstated once they get more time again.) These are the questions that I have yet to see anyone answer with any satisfaction. There really is a disquieting sense of entitlement running through some of these comments. If Admins, as a class (and, yes, it's unfair to paint with this broad a brush, as we can even see from these discussion that Admins are hardly a monolithic block on these issues, but such is human nature...), have perception issues with the great unwashed masses of editors, I'd suggest it's this that's contributing substantially to it. --IJBall (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what this discussion has been all about. Essentially, the "600 active Admins" (or however many there are that do the requisite "one edit per year") number is completely phony – in truth, the real "active Admin" number is probably 200–300, and those Admins are doing a large percentage of the "work" that needs to be done... But, really, I think this discussion needs to shift to Sam Walton's Idea Lab topic. --IJBall (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well, though in my view it's almost certainly going to die there. One further note here, if I may: I have previously proposed that Jimmy and the WMF create a new userrights group, "Auditors," whose function would be to look at problematic cases of systemic admin or established editor abuse without fear of blocking or Admin retaliation. I don't care to hash over the proposal here, but I continue to feel that only strong top-down policy changes by the WMF are going to be able to cut the Gordian Knott of ongoing abuse by flag holders and certain established editors, some of which is by way of subtle intimidation. Admins, until they flagrantly blow it, are given amazing latitude in all ways. At least, that's been my experience for most of the last 8 years. And admins, earlier this year, have !voted down attempts to unbundle the tools, which I find telling. Jus  da  fax   23:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe these auditors can be elected by the community for staggered terms so we know they are in touch with the norms of this project, conduct cases in public for transparency reasons, have a mailing list for coordination, have the ability to desysop a user or restrict where they can edit, and have jimmy be the final appeals body to keep them from being a runaway grand jury. Oh wait, this already exists. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  18:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can anyone give me a good reason why we shouldn't require administrators to go through a new RfA after they have been administrators for a full ten years? Clearly the requirements set by the community have changed, and it is also possible that some admims have skills that have deteriorated because of disease or advanced age. I would expect that many current admins would easily pass, and for those that wouldn't pass, do we really want them to have the tools? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many admins I know do very few admin level actions but the ones they do perform are done correctly and few even know about it. So unless someone screws up what is the issue? I doubt that most long time admins are more likely to muss things up than more recent ones.--MONGO 01:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Based on the data shown above in the post by TenOfAllTrades we should desysop admins who passed after 2007. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem unlikely that many admins get worse over time. The notion that long standing admins can't be trusted to pay attention to changes in relevant policies, guidelines and norms is also dubious IMO. If any old timers are habitually screwing up and not learning from their mistakes, they should be taken to ArbCom through the usual procedures. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I can see some good editors down at the bottom. Maybe we need to reach out to some of them and ask why they've been so inactive? Maybe that would encourage them to help out a bit more? Doug Weller (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking people why their real life circmstances are limiting their editing seems a bit intrusive to me. Tricky without risking giving people the idea that we only want people who can give a huge amount of time to the project. I know admins and other editors who are starting careers or have small children; I think we are a better site if we accept and value those who give time when they are free to do so. I hope that this site will still be going in thirty years time, long after I have shuffled off the mortal coil or been blocked for editing whilst senile. Unless we fix RFA many of the admins we will be relying on then will be the ones who became admins as precocious adolescents in the early years of the project. Providing we don't make the mistake of driving them away this can be the hobby they resume in their retirement or when their kids leave home.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "...some admins have skills that have deteriorated because of disease or advanced age". *snort* Come on, Guy.  Absent evidence to the contrary, the admin corps most likely roughly follows the demographics of the editor population.  I suspect that most admins get their bits in their twenties or thirties.  Admins who got their bits ten years ago are probably mostly in their thirties and forties now, maybe skewing a bit older.  They're less active because they have full-time jobs and full-time children.  It doesn't mean that their judgement and sanity have departed, nor that they are unable to follow changes in policy and practice. Forcing them to go through an unnecessary RfA for no reason other than age, when you can't be arsed to even look for problems with their conduct, is just an excellent way to ensure that Wikipedia has no long-term admins and no institutional memory.  It's a way to take the now-broken RfA process and retroactively ensure that we go back and break all the past successful, functional RfAs in the same way.  It's also a rewarming of – and variation on, an backdoor to – the perennial failed proposal that we carry out unnecessary and unpleasant re-RfAs on every admin at more frequent intervals&mdash;something the community has rejected over and over again.   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether this entire discussion is something of a red herring. Is there really a problem of "sleeper" administrators, inactive but deeply incompetent, someday rising to wreak havoc? I think a more important issue, the one that underlies the "trial by fire" nature of RfAs, is that there is no mechanism to remove, counsel or discipline admins short of ANI and Arbcom, both of which are far too drama-prone, and which I think are viewed with some cynicism by admins and ordinary users alike. I've proposed another approach in the idea labs discussion Sam initiated. Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * TenOfAllTrades, I am sure that it was inadvertent, but you quoted only part of what I wrote, thus completely changing the meaning. I wrote "...it is also possible that some admims have skills that have deteriorated because of disease or advanced age", not "some admims have skills that have deteriorated because of disease or advanced age". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I did change the meaning, actually; you're just playing semantic games to cover for advancing an untenable argument. Either you honestly believed that secretly-senile admins were a likely enough possibility to warrant mentioning them in support of your proposal, or you dishonestly wanted to just put that canard out there to garner undeserved support for your position.  If neither of those things were true, there wasn't any reason for you to type what you wrote.  (It is also possible that your dog actually randomly struck keys on your computer to post your comment, but using those four magic words wouldn't actually absolve me from criticism or ridicule had I tried to advance that as an explanation for your post.)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you are having so much trouble differentiating between the concepts "it is possible", "it is likely" and (through misquoting) simply asserting that something is true with no qualifier. Given your aggressive, sarcastic, and uncivil tone, I must conclude that further comments by me on the subject are unlikely to help you to tell these concepts apart, so I am invoking WP:IAD and withdrawing from this conversation now. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the principle of eating your own dog food should apply to Wikipedia administrators and RfAs. If going through an RfA after ten years as an administrator is such an onerous burden that administrators need to be protected from having to experience it, new candidates should have the same protection. The fact that we have a group of individuals who are immune from experiencing the hell that is RfA yet are allowed to vote down any reform of the RfA system could be seen as having the appearance of being self-serving. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RFA's tend to attract malcontents. If only admins were allowed to vote on the admittance and retention of other admins, much of the "hell" from RFA's would go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was expecting someone to suggest admins not being allowed to vote on RfA reforms (which would be the wrong solution to the problem I talk about above; admins having to experience RfA every ten years would IMO be a far better solution). The idea of only allowing admins to vote on RfAs goes against Wikipedia's core values, and thus will never happen. In addition, there is a danger which we have seen happen in many organizations where an elite who already have control over the organization carefully select new elite members who will not rock the boat by suggesting reforms. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin reforms is one thing. RFA's are another. The RFA is a popularity contest, attracting everyone with an axe to grind against the candidate. The only way to gain adminship is to pretend to be a choir boy. Then once you're in, you've got it for life unless you do something really, really bad. Until that popularity contest "core value" changes, you will continue to lose admins and to discourage potentially good admins from bothering to try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I could say that you were wrong, but you hit the nail on the head. Alas, it may take a total meltdown of the system before someone wakes up and takes action, and that action is likely to be in the form "something needs to be done. X is something. Therefore X needs to be done." :( --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) Have you heard the old saying "Friends come and go; enemies accumulate"? I can tell you right off the top who would be voting against my next (hypothetical) RfA&mdash;just read down the list of acupuncture-promoting editors who opposed the topic ban I suggested at AN/I for one of their number a few days ago. Then go through the list of editors who keep trying to promote their cold fusion inventions in Wikipedia.  If you're still short, troll the talk pages of the articles on Andrew Wakefield and anti-vaccine activism.  It won't take long to find the twenty or thirty oppose votes necessary to sink a typical RfA. I don't think it would be good for the project to build a system where our most experienced admins will be encouraged to avoid controversial articles for a year or two before their re-RfAs. And incidentally, "eating your own dogfood" doesn't really make sense as a principle here.  RFA isn't something that was designed or is maintained by the admin corps.  While admins, like many other experienced editors, participate in RfA's votes the majority of voters don't seem to be admins.  (The most recent successful RfA was Requests for adminship/Abecedare 2; in it 7 of the first 10 voters were non-admin editors, and then I got tired of counting.)  Admins don't control the standards (or whims) by which RfA candidates are judged.  A number of admins, myself included, have noted problems with the evolution of RfA, but we – like most everyone – have been stymied by how to repair the process. As far as actually eating the adminship dogfood goes, I do it all the time.  Whenever I go to AN/I or AE or AfD to request (or establish consensus on) an admin action, I'm dogfooding&mdash;I'm relying on the quality of our existing admin corps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the problem at RFA was that the existing admins were being overly picky and trying to stop new people becoming admins then yes the solution could be to exclude admins from voting at RFA or require us to go through some sot of reconfirmation. However RFAs are not a secret ballot, anyone can check who supported and opposed and whether the admins are collectively more or less open to new admins than other editors. Last time it was properly looked into the pattern was that admins were usually as picky as the non admins, the only exceptions were some unusual high profile cases. My experience is that most admins rarely if ever take part in RFAs after they themselves make admin, and those of us who do include some who usually !vote support. I'd be interested to see some up to date figures, but I would be surprised if there had been many recent RFAs where disregarding the admin !votes would have moved it from unsuccessful to successful. In my experience "Admins are the reasons why RFAs fail" is as implausible a theory as "admins are the ones who block RFA reform". Just because admins are accused of  something doesn't make it true......  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  19:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is really disappointing. Antonio is a longtime editor who has made many thousands of good contributions over the years. He's been an administrator for 11+ years at least, and it's a shame that things had to go down this way. The desysop was obviously the correct move; sockpuppetry is unbecoming of an administrator and cannot be tolerated. I just hope that Antonio will recognize where he went wrong and work to rebuild his standing within our community. Kurtis (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow. As some may know I suggested an arbcom case would be a waste of time. This is embarassing afther what happened although if it were to happen again, I'd probably say the same think if I could be bothered because at the time, there was no evidence I saw that things were this bad. And I'm not certain a general arbcom case would have uncovered it. Plus even if it did, we obviously can't open arbcom cases because an editor has shown some poor behaviour, so perhaps they are socking. An arbcom case will hopefully mroe carefully analyse the behaviour to find whether there's other stuff that has been missed or gotten little attention, but the limited resources still suggest this should be limited to cases where we definitely need arbcom, i.e. the community can't take action and I still believe the general behaviour raised in the thread suggested it was more fruitful to look at wider sanctions rather than simply removing the admin bit, if it became necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no reason to feel embarrassed. The sockpuppeting took everyone by surprise, and the alert arb who discovered it deserves props. The fact is that while I was pushing for desyssopping on pre-sockpuppeting grounds, you are correct: incompetence alone is not grounds for removal of an admin at the present time. Your second point is also correct, but as you know the discussion at ANI was halted immediately after the desysopping, effectively saying that admin status is such a high station in wiki-life that removal from it is a serious blow equivalent to a block. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone (don't ask who, I can't remember) coined this the "Super Mario effect". –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Afraid you'll have to explain that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the video game series Super Mario Bros., if Mario eats a magic mushroom (successful RFA), he becomes Super Mario (administrator) and if he gets injured (gets caught violating policy), he doesn't die (get blocked), he just reverts to non-Super Mario (editor). –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be courcelles, iirc -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable analogy, Xeno, but I think "caste" captures the effect a little more precisely. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Infoboxes arbitration case

 * Original announcement


 * (trivial) The last bullet of the motion should have "... remedy 3.2 shall automatically lapse." or (redundant but otherwise ok) "... remedy 3.2 as well as remedies I-IV of this motion shall automatically lapse", else we have a potentially paradoxical scenario. :) Abecedare (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That had me laughing for a while :P --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others closed

 * Original announcement


 * I know I can't be the only one who is really disappointed in how this case turned out. In the beginning I just thought that OccultZone was on a really bad downward spiral, and probably needed a short break from editing to gather his thoughts and get a new perspective on things. Then the sockpuppetry evidence surfaced, and seeing that one of the two alternate accounts was created over a year ago, the recent incidents can't be so easily excused. I hate seeing him banned for a full year, but the Arbitration Committee was left with no choice. I hope OccultZone will take his time away from Wikipedia to reflect on what got him into this situation in the first place, but I also think it'd be good for him to do something else for a while - something that he enjoys. I don't think he's been enjoying Wikipedia over the past several months; you can see the amount of stress that it has been causing him. Come June 2016, I hope he submits his appeal and it gets accepted. It will take a while for him to reintegrate. Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain. But I think OccultZone can get it back, and here's hoping that he can eventually put this dark period of his Wikipedia experience behind him to become a valued contributor once more. Kurtis (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any case on this project where a person who has lost trust enough to be banned by the AC has regained the trust of the community. From my knowledge, once you are besmirched here (rightfully or wrongfully), you're toast. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can think of several instances in which editors who were banned by ArbCom have returned from the ban and become valuable editors again. I wouldn't say those editors are permanent "toast," although I grant that "regained the trust" is more subjective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is subjective. But, regained trust to me implies abilities to gain or regain permissions beyond editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can actually think of at least one editor who was banned indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee and later passed an RfA. I don't think this would apply to OccultZone though, especially considering the newest revelations. Kurtis (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the "trust of the community", but people have come back to become productive and valuable editors. Bgwhite (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Example pictured, banned twice (almost three times), and I trust him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the sock and alternative accounts be blocked too? Bgwhite (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see below. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to the closing clerk, I have listed the topic ban and one-account restrictions at WP:EDR since (unless repealed) they remain active despite (in addition to) the current site ban. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone and sockpuppetry
I conducted a sockpuppetry investigation independent of ArbCom, and with their permission, I have posted my results at Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aghast. has its own 15K+ edits history and block log (and AN/I history) and several other socks I had interacted with and would've never suspected they were the same person. This deception and hypocrisy is amongst the filthiest of behaviour I have had the displeasure to witness. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, Bladesmulti. If OccultZone ever has the gall to try and come back I'll make sure I oppose most vigorously. I'm all for second chances but this type of thing is just too much. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and are familiar to anybody who deals with India related articles.  So, it was very shocking to see those two names.   AmritasyaPutra's account has been around since 2008, before OccultZone's account.  Wow.   Thank you DorD for releasing this.  Bgwhite (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, what even drives a person to commit this level of sockpuppetry? There must be at least 25k edits between those socks. Winner 42 Talk to me!  17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even. More like 250k-300k. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 23:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked at this, absolutely shocked. There are so many things wrong with this - using sockpuppets to criticise those making administrative actions against his main account, using sockpuppets to interfere with ANI threads, using sockpuppets to vote stack and interfere with XfD discussions and using sockpuppets to interfere with the Arbitration process. The most insulting thing was that they were asked, after the first couple of sockpuppets were exposed, whether there were any other accounts they wished to disclose, and they said they had no other sockpuppets, which is clearly not the case. The hypocrisy is troubling too, between OccultZone and Bladesmulti, this user was responsible for filing a large percentage of SPI cases in recent months. I don't see how the individual behind these accounts can ever be accepted back as a member of the community. Nick (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is, umm, wow. Given the passion that OccultZone had shown towards sockpuppets, I was surprised when the PD was posted and included were findings that OZ had used socks.  That was only a couple of accounts, okay, not good but I've seen worse.  This is rather worse.  Very disappointing. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am shocked that it happened, and shocked that it could even be done at so massive scale and for such a long time. Have interacted especially with AmritasyaPutra and Bladesmulti on numerous article and talk pages and disappointed at the dishonesty of it all. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally and not as an Arb, I'm dismayed. We've wasted a lot of time with these socks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yuck!!!!. And all that by an editor who got in trouble largely by demanding help fighting other socks.  Yuck!!!!  What was he thinking?  That he could hide?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am very surprised to hear this. Good find. <b style="color:Black">Chillum</b> 19:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what to say here. To think that just a little while ago, I expressed the sincere hopes that OccultZone can come back and contribute productively to our community once again. I'm not someone who would ever go so far as to say an editor should never be allowed back on Wikipedia after being banned (aside from pretty extraordinary circumstances), but the sheer scope of this user's deception is beyond words. Somebody should cross-examine the activities of each account to determine the extent of the damage. There could be a history of vote-stacking, edit warring via multiple different accounts, using alternate personas to gain the upper hand in content disputes, etc. Kurtis (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * DoRD's findings are the same as mine during the case. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes one wonder how much progress the WMF is making with eye-recognition technology to limit humans to one registered account. Blades, this is awful. Just awful. Drmies (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously meant as a joke :) But what is more of a 'joke' is the inability of the project to monitor itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The socks are starting to request unblocks. Bgwhite (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Does he have no shame? Winner 42 Talk to me!  13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He is probably right that he isn't OccultZone, but that is a distinction without a difference. OccultZone isn't the oldest of the accounts, and has only been listed as the sock-master because he was the filing party.  The fact that Bladesmulti isn't OccultZone is likely true but irrelevant.  We don't know who is behind the sock-farm, and it doesn't matter, since we know it is a sock-farm.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one who isn't "shocked," or even surprised, by this? Sockpuppetry is rampant in the areas where these accounts edited. This is just one more example (admittedly with more activity than usual). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I was shocked. Today I am not shocked.  Two other editors explained to me how dishonest editors are those who are most fearful of dishonest editing.  With respect to an editor who brought himself down, see Tragedy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't yet know what the scope of the damage is. However, see Talk:Ayurveda, which is a traditional Indian healing philosophy.  In November 2014, an RFC asked whether it should be categorized as Pseudoscience.  In December 2014, I closed the RFC with the conclusion that there was consensus against that categorization, because it precedes the modern concept of science.  In February 2015, a closure review resulted in no consensus to reverse the close, thus leaving the close unchanged.  Within the past 24 hours, I was again asked to review my close, based on sock-puppetry including Bladesmulti.  I concluded that three of the !votes were of sock-puppets, but also that other editors in good faith had relied on the arguments of the sock-puppets.  I cancelled the close, and recommended a new RFC in place of a new close.  The new RFC is in progress.  We don't know whether any other content disputes have been corrupted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy. Could become a WP:LTA case. <span style="color: #3BB9FF; font-style: italic; font-family: Lato, sans-serif'">Esquivalience t 20:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can tell you this is not the only Indian sock farm. Please keep up searching. 104.238.169.87 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Robert, no comment on you as being victimized by someone doesn't make you a perpetrator. I would like to say that a main line of defense against vote stacking is the refusal to count votes in consensus forming, and instead rely on the strength of arguments. I've commented before elsewhere, but a 'vote' of 50-1 against <x> doesn't mean there's consensus against <x>. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But don't discount the impact of multiple *different* editors making good arguments on the subject to influence the flow and outcome of the debate. If the 50 to 1 is one person objecting to a blatant BLP violation, sure, policy dictates the result no matter how many people disagree. But far more often there isn't a right answer, and a strong majority with reasonable arguments, even when the other side also had reasonable arguments, ends up being consensus. <font color="Green">Monty <font color="#A3BFBF">845  16:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you had 50 people all sharing the same opinion, vs. 1 person holding an opinion, it's 1:1. There's weight of arguments, not vote counting. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Fifty people making a poor argument still have a poor argument, but fifty people making a good argument probably do get more weight than one person making the good argument. If 50 people think Hammersoft is a great editor and one disagrees, one would not say that opinion on the quality of Hammersoft's editing is evenly divided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How about we just agree I'm a bad editor and use a different example, eh? :) If 50 people say the sky is red, and 1 says it's blue, are the 50 right? Depends. What planet are we on? There's tons of ways to twist this. The reality is that evaluation of arguments is by far the best tool to evaluate consensus than vote counting. 50 people making the same argument convinces me of only one thing; there's one argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad (and I think with Monty). Closing is tricky because the closer must consider both strength of arguments and vote count.  If the closer considers only vote count, that is a vote count.  However, if the closer considers only the closer’s personal judgment of strength of argument, and discounts the number of opinions, that is a supervote.  If there were 50 people sharing the same opinion, and one other opinion, and the closer closed it as no consensus, then I would challenge the close.  In the case in point, I did take strength of argument into account.  I thought that the argument provided by the sock-puppets was a strong argument.  However, at this point, I defend not only my original close, but my setting aside of my original close.  Good-faith editors had been persuaded by the multiple arguments by the socks, that is, multiple arguments that appeared to be by different human beings, but were not.  As a result, the entire discussion was corrupted.  Is Hammersoft saying that a closer should cast a supervote? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course not, nor did I even begin to mention such an absurd idea. My point is if you strip out the number of people commenting, and isolate arguments for and against, even if you had 50 on one argument and one on the other, you have one argument vs. another. Over at WP:RFA, we've seen heavy criticism of people 'voting' oppose without indicating why, other than agreement with someone else who opposed. There's even been suggestion of tossing such votes as invalid. Not saying I agree with that. However, allowing a bunch of people agreeing with one opinion and not adding additional argumentation to carry to 'consensus' is vote counting. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a question, OZ's sock AmritasyaPutra filed a complaint against Darkness_Shines that resulted in him receiving a year-long block (see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive174). OccultZone also commented upon it. Does it require a second look? What do you think? Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it does, purely so that such behaviour is discouraged in future. I don't believe it will make a great deal of difference in the longer term, but the Arbitration Enforcement request started by AmritasyaPutra should be 'voided' and the present sanction (an indefinite block) rescinded. Nick (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's up to . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering everything that has transpired, I think it's worth a review. Not suggesting that it should be overturned, but if the major determining factor of that case was the filing of the motion and the influence by other controlled accounts, then I think it's our responsibility to re-examine that decision. It may turn out the same but at least due diligence has been had. Mkdw talk 00:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dunno about the Darkness Shines case but the logic of the Ayurveda RFC nullification(?) seems weak to me. It seems to treat the non-sock commenters there as impressionable children or something.  If I see five arguments supporting position X and I'm persuaded by three of them, it shouldn't matter whether they came from one poster (say as a numbered list) or from three different posters, or (in the Ayurveda case) one poster pretending to be three.  Might have been ok to just strike the sock comments and possibly re-open the original RFC for another week.  50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction regarding open Lightbreather arbitration case

 * Original announcement


 * I read "sans the usual exceptions" to mean the opposite of "with the usual exceptions" which is to say that in this case the usual exceptions do not apply. If this is not the Committee's intended meaning, that should be made clear. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like "sans" was intended to mean "except for", i.e. "except for the usual exceptions". Maybe it's not hypercorrect usage but the meaning seems clear.  Sometimes I see "modulo" used like that ("modulo the usual exceptions"), which also works.  50.0.136.194 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Functionally unambiguous wording might be "the usual exceptions apply." I think the meaning is clear, though, from the fact that the exceptions are enumerated.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC).

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC).

The intended meaning is that the standard exceptions do not apply ("sans" meaning "without" or "minus", the only meaning of the word given at Wiktionary, as sans serif fonts are clearly not relevant to the context.). The only exceptions to the interaction ban are those specifically enumerated in this motion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the exceptions are enumerated means that they're not the usual ones, otherwise there would be no need to enumerate. Clearly. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't you just say "without" or "minus" then, rather than using a French-derived word that's not in wide use in everyday English and which obviously not everyone understands? Mr Potto (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we need to do this in future we will. While I can't speak for anyone else, it is a usage that I do hear frequently in my daily life (although not literally every day) and did not have any trouble understanding the meaning. Indeed that anyone would think it meant the opposite comes as a surprise to me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's cool, thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sans is widely used in everyday English. It appears in every major British and American English dictionary. If someone has access, I'd be curious to know where it falls on a Word lists by frequency. The word appears in Shakespeare so I imagine it wouldn't be all that too low on the list but I could be wrong. Mkdw talk 23:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to know that too. I'm a wordsmith by profession and "sans" is not common in the circles in which I move in the UK (which might just be due to the lowly status of my circles, of course ;-) Mr Potto (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While I'm no professional wordsmith, I am fascinated by language. I had a look last night, and the only thing I can tell you is that is not one of the 2000 most common words used in "contemporary fiction" (I forget the definition of that) nor one of the 1000 most used on Project Gutenburg as of late 2008. This is getting off topic for this page though, so if you want to continue the discussion might I suggest Wiktionary's Tea room as a better venue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I do agree that ArbCom should strive to minimize potential ambiguity and to make its deicsions as accessible as possible -- "sans" is a loanword from French that can easily be substituted for "without". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Arbcom has displayed a fondness for pseudo-legalistic regalia and language. This is not unprecedented among similar organizations of the past, and is not without a function: after all, Arbcom is a pseudo-juridical body and enforces rules and procedures that seem, within the project, equivalent to laws. History teaches us that too much reliance on the trappings of law brings a body, sooner or later, up against the inherent contradiction: Arbcom’s word is not law, its writ does not run, and its gravest sanction casts out an editor from a club that most people would not join if they were paid to do so,


 * Some of Arbcom’s recent errors can be blamed on precisely this sort of overreach. A court that stretches too far makes problems for its successors; a pseudo-court that over-reaches is merely ridiculous. GGTF and GG each wandered into the fields of absurdity, and of course in the latter case the absurdity was rather widely publicized.


 * The path back from the brink begins with finding sufficient humility to understand that this is not  a high court with pomp and grave penalties: this is pretty much a boy’s club, and it might behoove Arbcom to adopt the language and demeanor of the leader of a club rather than constantly reaching for the language it (incorrectly) will lend it more gravity, Plain speaking, plain language, circumspect behavior, and humility might better comport with the position of Arbcom in today’s world. 'Tis a gift to be simple... MarkBernstein (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Salvidrim, I agree that all decisions, even temporary ones, should be unambiguous. "Sans" is an unusual usage in this context, and it can be read either way.  It's just like saying "This ban prohibits her from doing X, minus these things that we generally permit" — does that mean "Banned from X, and without the protections of the usual exceptions" or "The ban prohibits X, but of course reverting blatant vandalism to the user's talk page is an exception", i.e. the ban prohibits interaction, but sans/without prohibiting her from reverting me when I replace Scalhotrod's talk page with obscenities.  This really should have said either "...interaction ban, and the usual exceptions don't apply here" or "...interaction ban, with the usual exceptions".  Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , it is more usually in the WP context an arb com that has not gone far enough that produced subsequent problems. At least half the problems confronting us so far this year could have been prevented by sufficiently energetic action being taken in the fist place. The discussions within arb com I have sen in my first half-year there have in my opinion frequently shown a  tendency to withhold action to avoid even the doing something which is mistaken. The only way to avoid making actual   mistakes is to find some technical reason to avoid doing anything.  At arb com, we find ourselves  to a considerable extent trying to judge the future actions of people on the basis of what we can guess about their intentions. The only approach to this is to realize we are not here to judge people; we are here to resolve current disputes and prevent future ones, not to give people their just deserts, buy rather for the benefit of the encyclopedia.  Our available sanctions are consequently limited to those that apply within the encycopedia only, which is as it should be--but as they do not affect anyone's liberty or RW status,  we should not be afraid to use them.  DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block closed

 * Original announcement


 * Sad to see it go down like this, but I can understand the reasoning behind the ArbCom's remedies in this case. It's difficult to say whether or not Cavalry has the sufficient trust of the community to hold advanced permissions. A new RfA would probably be necessary, and if he decides to run again, he'll have my support (not too sure, actually) . On an unrelated note, I believe this is the first time a former arbitrator has actually been desysopped by an ArbCom decision. Kurtis (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, Sam Blacketer was also desysopped by the Arbcom, except it happened 2 years before his tenure. The part where history repeats itself though is that what would eventually end his tenure as an arb was also tied to UK politics. MLauba (Talk) 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct decision. It's unfortunate that Chase Me didn't voluntarily resign (even though it would be under a cloud) and that he has, as a write this, said more to The Guardian than he has to his colleagues on Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A great pity that it was decided not to determine this before the UK General Election. Giano    (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure it would have changed the course of history itself.... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. The fact an editor was chased away during a time when an editor with a keen interest in that subject, without any evidence behind the blocking, is disgraceful. And what happens? Another admin gets their wrists slapped and nothing else. Anyone else doing that kind of hounding would have ended up on a lengthy block/site-ban.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think it can reasonably be argued that the "keen interest" of User:Contribsx in articles related to Grant Shapps, Grant Shapps' opponents, and Grant Shapps' rivals, would have been a benefit to the encyclopedia during the election campaign. Or even to Grant Shapps himself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ArbCom could have determined in a few days whether the evidence before Chase me justified the confidence of his pronouncements, and made a preliminary finding on that point well before the election. It chose not to. If you think that a public correction from Wikipedia ahead of the election wouldn't have had some effect on subsequent events, I can only endorse Giano's assessment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that the committee received all the evidence it required to make that judgement before the election. I was/am recused from this case, so I have no inside knowledge on what evidence was received and when it was received, but remember the deadline for evidence submission was put back at least once. The committee is not a court and has no power to compel anyone to give it any evidence at all by any specific deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the committee had told Chase me to put before it the evidence upon which he based his strident assertions of Shapps's responsibility for Contribsx, he could have done that in an hour. A focussed discussion between them and him about that evidence to clear up any possible misunderstandings would have taken 24 hours. They chose not to.


 * If Chase me had refused to cooperate, they could have put that refusal to cooperate into a preliminary finding along with the evidence Chase me had publicly adduced up to that point, and the obvious conclusion to be drawn from that available evidence. ArbCom made the decision (possibly by default) to proceed with a whole case before correcting the public record. It was a foolish (to be generous) and irresponsible choice, making them complicit in any subsequent real world consequences of this defamation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that imposing time constraints on submission of evidence is completely reasonable—in fact, that's what we do by default with every case by imposing the evidence submission deadline, and that's what we did in this case. That said, I can't think of any circumstances in which I would feel a 24-hour deadline would be reasonable. We are all volunteers who have other commitments, and I know that personally there have been many occasions in which I have not been on Wikipedia in 24 hours, much less able to compile a complete evidence submission. We did extend the evidence period in this case, and I did not feel that was inappropriate—the Wikipedia-related conduct was not time-sensitive, as we did not feel that it was wise to try to rush a decision or try to base the timeline on offwiki events. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia-related conduct was not time-sensitive. Take as long as you like about that. No need to rush decisions about on-wiki stuff. I'm disappointed you didn't see the need to act with urgency on the real world situation, though.
 * Chase me had at his fingertips all the evidence you needed for a preliminary finding on this one urgent question: Was his confidence in identifying Shapps with Contribsx justified by the evidence before him when he spoke to the press ? You had a moral responsibility to address that one question urgently, and make a public clarification well before the election. You blew it. Badly.
 * Regarding, "...I can't think of any circumstances in which I would feel a 24-hour deadline would be reasonable. We are all volunteers who have other commitments, and I know that personally there have been many occasions in which I have not been on Wikipedia in 24 hours, much less able to compile a complete evidence submission." OK. 48 hours. This was serious defamation
 * in Wikipedia's voice
 * by a WMUK employee and a Wikipedia administrator
 * affecting the reputation of a (then) cabinet minister and senior office-holder and candidate in an imminent general election.
 * That you (pl.) felt you could just ignore this fact and put off correcting the record until you'd figured out the on-wiki issues in the fullness of time tells me ... I don't know ... something about your collective grip on reality and sense of moral responsibility. Is there one arbitrator who will acknowledge that you, as a group, failed here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  05:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As loath as I am to compare ArbCom to any judicial process, if this had been before a real-world court, a final decision would likely have taken years, because doing it right is more important than doing it right now. I am not at all sorry that we take the time to gather appropriate evidence and deliberate on a reasonable decision. If you consider that a failure, I hope we always fail in that way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I said you should have urgently - not carelessly or incompetently - addressed those aspects of Chase me's behaviour that affected Shapps's reputation. Everybody reading this, even you, knows that it should have taken Chase me no more than a couple of hours to put before you the evidence upon which he based his confident assertions to The Guardian:
 * "Believe" speaks of a high level of confidence. All you had to do was look at that evidence and, based on it alone, offer an opinion about the strength of the probability that Contribsx is run by Shapps or under Shapps's direction. It would have taken less than 8 hours. You didn't even try. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also we don't get paid a pence to do this. Our jobs, education, families, and other obligations come first. Even if I was paid a very attractive amount ($50K+), I wouldn't jeopardize my Uni graduation for an arbcom case. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry you had other things to do. Those that had the time could probably have gotten by without you on this one. (In fact, you (pl.) should have appointed a sub-committee that could dedicate the day or two it would have taken to assess the evidence Chase me based his accusations on.)


 * To be clear: You didn't need to prove/disprove a link between Shapps and Contribsx; you didn't need to look at any other evidence than that which Chase me relied upon at the time he publicly linked the two. The only evidence you needed to address urgently was that. All ready. Sitting in a little folder on Chase me's desktop, probably - or no more than a couple of hours of gathering away at most. Very, very disappointing.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  06:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Added 08:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good decision. Note that the committee's decision did not undo or otherwise comment on the block of the Contribsx account; this was left to the community. The Contribsx account has since been unblocked.
 * I believe there are still legitimate questions for Wikimedia UK to answer, but I am not holding my breath. Andreas JN 466 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted there, if you have questions for Wikimedia UK your best chance of getting answers is actually asking Wikimedia UK on their wiki or via any of the other contact methods they list on their website. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You see, that is precisely the point. No one should have to come running after Wikimedia UK, or jump through hoops, for them to clarify to the community what happened, and why it was or wasn't appropriate. There are clear implications in the timeline ArbCom posted as part of its decision. It is in Wikimedia UK's interest to address them. Andreas JN 466 21:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very important that the National Chapters and the various language WPs remain independent of each other, and that the one central body, the WMF, regulate things with a very light hand and only when absolutely unavoidable. WP as a movement needs to preserve diversity and allow for multiple approaches; it needs to fight bureaucracy and avoid monolithic control. The role of arb com on the English WP is deliberately limited, and I  think (or at least hope) that those of us on it would not want to be members otherwise. We most of us have careers in formal conventional organizations, and are here at WP because it is intended to be, and actually is, not just different, but as far opposite as it can be while producing useful results (and I thinks it's fully shown that it does produce useful results unmatched by any other organization on any principle). To be sure, our way or working creates inevitable losses in efficiency and consistency--since the rest of the world is increasingly moving in the opposite direction, it becomes increasing crucial to maintain our own multiple individualities.  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * David, Wikimedia, both on the level of the Foundation and on the level of the movement as a whole, professes to espouse transparency as one of its core values. Fine words, but they ring hollow when actions don't match them. At the Foundation level, donors are shown fundraising messages that many users feel are misleading. At the community level, users exploit the cover of anonymity for years on end to engage in vendettas or promote commercial interests. At the chapter level, Wikimedia UK has had widely reported problems with conflicts of interest in the past. And we now have an ArbCom finding that to my eyes appears to expose a long history of inappropriate backroom contacts between a national newspaper and Wikimedia UK staff members, in the service of a partisan political agenda. Under these circumstances, a bit more actual transparency would be welcome. I agree that ideally, this should not be compelled. More specifically, I agree that it was not part of ArbCom's brief here to compel Wikimedia UK to do anything, or to disclose WMUK-internal information that was not of immediate relevance to resolving this case. The format and content of the timeline you provided as part of your findings seems entirely appropriate. However, I am still disappointed that Wikimedia UK does not appear to see a need to proactively respond to the implications of your findings and provide a full account of what happened, instead seeming to hope that the matter will blow over and go away. I don't think it will work that way. Andreas JN 466 07:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Respond to some of this with my personal views: About WMUK,  I cannot say anything useful, because I have no  first-hand knowledge.  About fundraising, I agree  whole-hearetedly with your comments--we need to keep raising money on a continuing basis, but to pretend there was an emergency was foolish. The revenge (Qworty) would have been a matter for arb com, but the community dealt with it on its own--it was fundamentally an extension of off-WP literary quarrels, & WP was just one of the channels for it.  Arb com dealt with the promotion of the business school. WP will never be free from promotion and misuse as long as it continues a commitment to anonymous editing.  And we did at arb com make a finding of inappropriate involvement with an outside entity.  "Proactively responding" to the findings is a matter for the communities involved, but I will personally say I see no obvious way of doing this at enWP.  DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The obvious way for WMUK to respond proactively is to clarify who among WMUK staff was in touch with the Guardian, what kind of information was provided to the Guardian, what level of collaboration there was between WMUK and the Guardian for the 2012 and 2015 Shapps stories, whether this was done on staff or personal time and with or without the knowledge of WMUK board members and managers, and so forth – just answering the obvious questions that the published timeline of events raises. Does it really matter where that statement is made? I don't think so. If it isn't made here, a link to it could be placed here. Andreas JN 466 20:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've asked and this was the response I received. To say I'm underwhelmed, disappointed and angry in equal measure in a significant under statement. Nick (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Two more write-ups this evening:
 * The Guardian: Wikipedia: account at centre of row 'not linked' to Grant Shapps
 * Scienceblogs (Stoat): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block: aka Chase-Me and Grant Shapps Andreas JN 466 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Breitbart: Shapps case raises questions for Wikipedia and The Guardian --Andreas JN 466 20:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

When are you all going to fix the defamatory and misleading Wikipedia page on Shapps?Dan Murphy (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Nah. The people who run this place are incompetent, unreasonable, and often ideologically driven. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. This website's article on the man, meanwhile, continues to be deceptive and defamatory about him. Why would I want to cover that up?Dan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the content of Wikipedia articles is something the arbitration committee is explicitly prohibited from deciding. If you think an article is incorrect, then you should either fix it yourself or discuss it on the article's talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated Grant Shapps: (Surprised that no one had thought to do that already...) If you think that one line isn't sufficient, feel free to add more information. Robofish (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the advanced permissions including his administrator tools for his seriously poor judgment. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the correct result, but it's far too late to put right any political or public damage caused to Shapps and Wikipedia as a result. While Chase may have been the instigator or tool causing the damage, Wikipedia itself (that's all of us) must accept a share of the blame because our purpose is to impartially inform, on this occasion we failed seriously on three points.


 * 1: Wikipedia defamed a high profile politician without evidence.


 * 2: Wikipedia misled an electorate.


 * 3: Wikipedia willfully failed to correct the damage before that same electorate voted.

There is no excuse for the length of time it has taken to reach this decision and people must draw their own conclusions from that. At the very least, an official interim denial of any extant evidence could have been issued the following day - it wasn't. Jimmy Wales privately phoned Shapps the next day to explain, so if Wales knew the truth why could the public not be told then? This affair has been badly handled from start to finish, and I expect it will have far reaching consequences and ramifications. We still don't know which Wikipedia staff and editors Chase discussed this with (as he claimed) before taking his actions and that is concerning too. Perhaps the atrocious handling of this case is merely the result of the inward looking Americocentric culture we hear so much of in Europe rather than an ill-conceived UK based political agenda; however the likely explanation is that it's just another Wikipedia 'cock up' cause by bad management at all levels - paid and volunteer; and a culture which permits the inept and stupid to be fêted and promoted. Giano   (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , had we rushed to complete it before the election, we would probably have been accused of having done so for political purposes and to make a political impact. So we  took the time we needed without paying any attention to the timing.  DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We can not compel anyone to produce documents or recount why they did an action. To receive the information we need to finish a case, we sometimes need to wait until a party has the time to submit evidence. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and : You seem to forget that Jimmy Wales was able to phone Grant Shapps personally the day after the story broke in the UK national press and reassure him that this was the work of a lone mistaken/rogue/whatever editor. If Wales knew the truth, why the Hell didn't the Arbcom or the Foundation - WTF is going on? Why was an official statement refuting the allegations not immediately issued? The severity of the sanctions against Chase could have waited a month, refuting false allegations is far more urgent. Giano    (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales is of course able to do as he pleases, but his views and the deliberations of the Arbitration Committee are two very separate matters. We took the time we needed to gather and process the relevant evidence. How Mr. Wales reached his decision I, of course, do not know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I suggest you ask Mr Wales how he knew and learn from his reply. Because however he knew, it was a damn sight more efficient method then the one you were using. I cannot believe that if Wales knew the truth, the Foundation did not know the truth and ultimately the Arbcom too and between the lot of you a statement could not have been issued before the election refuting the allegations. Giano    (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "...cause[d] by bad management at all levels - paid and volunteer". Why do we even want this user as a volunteer? Any other volunteer organization would have likely severed ties entirely.  I don't understand that part, but this is the internet, I guess, rather than a brick-and-mortar institution. Weird. Rgrds. --64.85.216.15 (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone informed the OTRS administration about this decision? They may wish to re-evaluate the editor's access to certain OTRS queues in light of the findings. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 13:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , it is my understanding that the OTRS administrators have removed ChaseMe's access to all OTRS queues save the WMUK queue. His access to the Oversight queue was removed promptly after his access to the oversight permission was removed. If the applicable page on Meta has not yet been updated, it will likely be done soon.  Risker (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering the egregious betrayal of trust along with the real-world harm, I am amazed that CMLITC still is allowed to edit here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Such action would be punitive. We don't do that. The damage that was caused was done so with the use of advanced permissions, all of which have been removed. There were no actions taken via standard editing privileges which were candidates for sanction, and therefore removing editing privileges would be out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Hammersoft. It was the misuse of checkuser that was at issue, not any editing behavior or misconduct. Since concern is with the prevention of damage and not punishment, the permissions were removed. There is no cause for an extended editing block. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see that in a formal sense he didn't edit war or anything that would technically lead to blocking. Mere dishonesty is not a cause for blocking, otherwise the editor ranks would be considerably depleted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you raised an important point. What does one of Wikipedia's royalty have to do to get indeffed? This one dragged Wikipedia's name through the mud, creating much worse damage to the project than 99% of the people who do get indeffed. Yet his being removed and kicked out is not even in the cards because it would be "punitive." Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same as anybody else - they need to abuse basic editing privileges (which Chase me has not done) and lose faith of the community and/or have a compromised account. There are multiple examples users who were formally in very good standing who have since been indefinitely blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In reading back in Wikipedia's dispute history, I've been very surprised to see how many long-term (say, 5 years or more) editors/admins have received indefinite blocks, it happens more often than I thought although it was more prevalent in the past (pre-2010), that's my impression. There are a variety of things that can go wrong but what most often tripped them up was socking. That activity was the most common cause leading to a block. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. In the AntonioMartin situation, a long-term user was caught socking and all that was done was that his admin "mop" was taken away - no block. Considering that mere mortals are blocked for exceeding 3RR, that's the best example I can find of "administrator immunity" for misconduct. This is a different case, far worse. A high-level Wikipedian is caught doing something far worse than "abusing basic privileges" and, again, he just loses his high station in wiki-life but doesn't get the block a non-admin edit-warrior or non-admin sockpuppeteer gets. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to note that Sock puppetry makes it clear that having a second, undisclosed account is perfectly acceptable under policy. It does note that great care needs to be taken to not cause disruption, but it does not prohibit otherwise policy abiding behavior in alternate accounts. Yet, if anyone is caught having a second, undisclosed account they are (so far as I've seen) wiki-lynched. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if you define "wikilynching" as "getting your admin privileges removed and a stern finger-wagging" than that's a wikilynching. See . Just a couple of weeks ago. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This was the inevitable ending of one of the saddest Arbcom cases I have been involved in, and that’s saying a lot given my 5 years as a member of the committee. Nobody won.  Mr Shapps lost his seat at the Cabinet table.  The British electorate lost about 4% of its election campaign  because of the media’s inability to ignore silliness. The Guardian has come across as manipulative and the reporter is apparently under investigation.  ChaseMe has lost a reputation he took years in building, and perhaps even more.  Wikipedia’s reputation has taken another hit. I’m pretty sure I managed to lose a few friends over this too, for pursuing this matter (or pursuing it in the way that I did).  Nobody won.  Everybody lost. I wish I could say that there were some teaching moments here, but I'm having a hard time finding them. I wish I could say that checkusers have learned what boundaries are not to be crossed – but judging by the reaction of my checkuser colleagues to the SPI that started this ball rolling, they already knew that. I am certain that none of them would have ever made such a direct link to a public person based on the evidence that was available in this case, and none of them, I am certain, would ever have emailed their SPI statement to the media at all, let alone before actually publishing it on-wiki. I hope the community can feel somewhat reassured about that.  As editors, we’ve seen that the mainstream media we depend on for sourcing of so many of our articles is only slightly more accurate than the National Enquirer, a depressing thought given how much we rely upon them; perhaps it is time to rethink whether tomorrow’s fishwrap is really that reliable, and whether the momentary excitation of the media, ever hungry for anything even mildly salacious, is really worthy of a thousand bytes of “column space”.   I hope that longtime editors and administrators will go back and read the BLP policy and really start enforcing it to the fullest – all of it, including removing relative trivia from articles about people, treating accounts that might possibly be the subject of the article with decency rather than bullying, and insisting that others also meet those standards.  I can hope, but I’ve been hoping this for a long time and I’m seeing increasing disregard for the BLP policy as time has gone on. It’s time for others to pick up this torch. Don’t leave it to our outside critics (or even our internal critics) – this is a responsibility that all of us share. I'm just not convinced that "the community" agrees. I'd love to be proved wrong. Risker (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are no winners in this, only losers. Your thoughts are excellently written here Risker. To address one of the points you raise; accuracy in the media and our reliance on it. Truth is an amorphous thing. As the old adage goes, the more something is repeated the more it is perceived as true. Speaking in a very abstract sense, Wikipedia is doing a very good job of pulling together information from secondary sources from around the world, and then having that compilation be viewed as 'truth' to the millions of readers every day who come to Wikipedia looking for answers to something (thanks in no small part to Google). When we get something wrong (and I think we do it far more than anyone is willing to consider grasping, much less believe), it becomes 'truth' because we are the preeminent world wide dispenser or 'truth'. In some ways, Wikipedia has harmed human advancement as much as it has helped. Nevertheless, something like Wikipedia was inevitable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with Hammersoft) I agree with substantially everything Risker has written here (the exception being that I'm not going to opine about reasons for the Cabinet non-reappointment).
 * (responding to Hammersoft) I disagree with your second-last sentence, but I agree with most everything else you wrote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no way to evaluate it. It's a subjective opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Great summary by Risker. If there is any winner, it is the general public, who have received another object lesson in why they should treat Wikipedia's pronouncements with caution.
 * and make valuable points about the accuracy of press sources. I've always loved this quote: "What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like a soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate. Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than perfection has often to be accepted."
 * Press stories about Wikipedia fulfil a useful function for Wikipedians: they demonstrate first hand just how often details in media stories are wrong. I have lost count of the number of times where I have seen someone argue from personal knowledge in Wikipedia, "but this is not what happened", and seen Wikipedians reply with almost sadistic pleasure, "but this is a reliable source, and what reliable sources say is all that matters here".
 * History used to be written by historians. Today, it is written by Wikipedians regurgitating and immortalising press stories (if not inventing things outright), with the resulting concoction achieving a greater readership and market monopolisation than any qualified historian ever did. For all the convenience and great content Wikipedia contains, I fully agree with Hammersoft's penultimate sentence: "In some ways, Wikipedia has harmed human advancement as much as it has helped." It's no utopia. Andreas JN 466 15:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Audit subcommittee
I am troubled by the reported text of the audit subcommittee (AUSC) findings. Had the matter been referred to AUSC alone, it appears that they would have concluded (incorrectly, and manifestly so) that these matters were not a "major breach of policy" and would have issued only a warning to Chase me. For the avoidance of doubt, could someone please confirm that ArbCom and AUSC had access to all of the same evidence? Does AUSC stand by its findings now that it has seen the full ArbCom decision? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * if you examine the voting at the PD, you will observe that the degree of agreement with AUSC varies among the individual arbitrators.  DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur with WJBscribe. Based on the policy wording (including "The tool should not be used for political control" and " it is a violation of the privacy policy... to reveal... other information sufficient to identify them") I fail to see how the actions can be described as not a "major breach of the policy." It seems a strange judgement indeed. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, my reading of the findings that the tool was not used for political control, but the actions lead to the appearance that it might have been used in such a manner. If that is correct, then I can see room for legitimate disagreement on how serious that was with both "you didn't actually break the policy, but it was not clear to observers this was the case - do better next time" and "the appearance to observers was of a significant breach of policy, and it is as important the policy is seen to be followed as it is that it is followed - no second chances" being proportionate based on your interpretation.
 * Secondly, the AUSC ruling was made only by those members who were not arbitrators, and so it is conceivable that they did not have access to all of the private evidence the arbitrators did (I do not know), if so then it is most likely that the evidence that was available either pointed to less serious interpretation of events or was not sufficient to be conclusive about the seriousness of events and they chose to give Chase me the benefit of any doubt.
 * Put the two together and I can see why the AUSC might have concluded the way it did. If the AUSC were in possession of all the evidence, then my theory holds less water as a whole as while the political control aspect may not have been interpreted as serious, the divulging of information should have been. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on some of the findings of fact we didn't have everything. We were looking solely at the use of checkuser and we had some detail on what Chase me divulged but not the whole lot. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

How much auditing is the Audit Subcommittee doing?
Speaking of the AUSC, given the precendent of this case, it does raise some rather interesting questions about whether proper auditing is being done of functionaries? This case caught the wind of public interest because of the high political profile of Shapps, the curious interactions of CheckUser usage, staff at WMUK and a reporter from The Guardian newspaper—and the filing of an ArbCom case. What I'm curious about is whether a similar misuse of the CheckUser tool would have been caught had it not been brought before ArbCom through the channel of a request for arbitration. My hunch is "no".

Does ArbCom have any plans to reform or modify the role of the AUSC so that it is proactive in checking for abuse or misuse of the functionary tools (CheckUser and Oversight)? Currently, it seems to me that the only real check on the power of CheckUsers and Oversighters is that misuse of functionary tools can be brought before ArbCom in the form of a case—if a suitably motivated individual is willing to bring a case. Instead, why not consider a process where ArbCom, AUSC or maybe some other body randomly checks a percentage of CheckUser or Oversight functions to see if abuse/misuse is taking place, and to remedy it if it is.

Obviously, I assume good faith in thinking that most CUs/OSes are good and trustworthy (I certainly have found the oversighters I've dealt with directly to be professional) and any process to randomly audit samples of CU/OS actions would need to be relatively unintrusive for the CU/OSer, presuming innocence and good faith unless the quick auditing turns up an issue that needs investigating. As ArbCom has the power (delegated from Jimbo etc.) to appoint functionaries, do they have some responsibility to police their actions? Given that the rest of the community has to trust ArbCom's decisions when it comes to CU/OS appointment, are we happy that ArbCom and the AUSC is doing a good enough job acting as a policing and governance body for CU/OS? —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I generally pick a random at least 20-50 checks a month to have a look at, and I try to get them from a range of CUs (and usually not from SPIs as that has a number of eyes on it) but when you consider the sheer number of checks that's only around 0.6-1%. The majority of investigations come from other editors, functionaries and self-reports. Checking those 20-50 generally takes at least an hour or two as I usually need to find all the evidence (as some CUs just write "sock check" in the log), decide whether I think there's enough and go from there. The Chase me one was referred to AUSC by another functionary before the ArbCom case was filed, and I'd started investigating before it was reported. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on. The AUSC is getting more than 20 requests a month? That is what I am taking from what you say here (if the majority of investigations are from outside AUSC, and you yourself are doing 20-50 reviews a month...), but if that is true then it's a phenomenal increase - at least tenfold - from previous years.  Risker (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not counting the ones I'm checking as an investigation. I'm only counting investigation as the auditors discussing an issue together and/or asking the CU who performed the question. We'd be lucky to get 1 or 2 a month that we actually investigate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't the low number of appeals/complaints a sign that the process generally works? Or do you think it is an indication that most editors don't know about the AUSC? It's heartening to see that members of the AUSC randomly check, uh, checks to see that they are appropriate, that's what I'd hope an oversight committee would do. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The random checks I wasn't particularly worried about; they're fine. Callanecc's wording suggested to me that they were receiving 20+ complaints a month, which would have been a 10- to 20-fold increase over...well, since the AUSC was created. It would also concern me, as a holder of CU and OS permissions, if they were receiving so many complaints but that the two groups never heard anything about any of them. In fact, their last report was in November 2014 (12 or 13 cases in the previous 19 months, depending on which line you read). It would be helpful to functionaries if the AUSC was to bother to give us a bit more detail about the cases that they investigated as in-scope, so at least we'd all be knowledgeable about what they feel is best practice, and why. Risker (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Risker, what is the typical frequency of AUSC reports? I know that the editors on the committee will be changing this summer. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request
I'm having difficulty squaring what I read on these pages with the statement given to the Guardian by. He says "I am happy to see that the committee found no evidence of foul play or political activism on my part, and I am glad to see that they were confident enough with my evidence to not overturn the block I made on Contribsx themselves, even though others might."

In the findings of fact, the AUSC statement that his actions created an appearance of favouritism and an appearance that the CU tool was being used to "exert political or social control" was explicitly endorsed. It would seem to be beyond the purview and ability of the committee to decide if Chase me was actually engaging in political activism, although they have allowed that it could appear that he was. Does the committee agree with the statement that they found no evidence of political activism?

I also have difficulty understanding how someone who has just had his admin rights stripped from him could suggest that the committee found "no evidence of foul play". Surely that is why Chase me is no longer a checkuser, oversighter, or admin? Is it unfair to conclude that "foul play" is exactly what the the committee found?

Finally, was unblocking Contribsx within the scope of this case? Should the fact that Contribsx was not unblocked by the committee suggest an endorsement of that block by the committee? American Pharaoh (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not an arbitrator (though I have experience as a former arbitrator), but for what it's worth, I don't see any need for the Committee to issue a clarification. The text of the Committee's decision speaks for itself. With regard to Contribsx, please see the discussion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what your answer means, Newyorkbrad. Chase me's statement to the press does not agree with my understanding of the committee's actions. I do not wish to assume that Chase me is being disingenuous or self-serving so I have asked for clarification of a few points. If they are clear to you, perhaps you could help me by answering my questions? I understand that you would not be speaking for the committee. American Pharaoh (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What NYB (probably) means is that the arbitration committee isn't in the business of reconciling potential differences between a decision that is here for all public to see, and the statements offered by others in their own name to third party media outlets. That would be the role of the press reprinting those interpretations (in particular those that are deemed WP:RS due to a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy). MLauba (Talk) 21:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * American Pharaoh, you seem to be asking the arbitrators to explain the contradiction between how you read the findings of fact and what Chase me said to the Guardian in an emailed statement. I think these kinds of questions are better answered by Chase me as the arbitration committee can't speculate on Chase me's interpretation of the outcome of the case. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (personal view):Agree with MLauba (and Liz). People are free to characterise the committee's decisions how they like off-wiki, and there's not much the committee can (or should) do about it. Anyone who reads the decision will draw their own conclusions either way.


 * Re Contribsx: an unblock is a matter for the community, and in fact they were unblocked almost immediately after the case outcomes became clear. Absent sufficient cause for a sockpuppet block, what remains is a short-term editor accused of POV contributions. In this instance that's more a content than a conduct concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC)

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

 * Original announcement