Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 31

Soap desysopped and banned

 * Original announcement


 * That is definitely not something I was expecting to see today - or any day, for that matter. Kurtis (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Any additional details available? Prodego  talk 01:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is based on a pattern of harassment of other Wikipedians in off-site venues. As with most issues concerning harassment and off-wiki conduct, we won't be going into further detail. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well this is utterly stupid, stop saying off-site, we all know it was on the IRC channels and this action was most defintiely not justified. I agree with de-sysopping him because even though he had issues, he never abused his rights, but it was a safe option to take but to ban him is utterly ridiculous...meh, we should always expect the worst and dumbest outcome from the arbcom and don't reply by saying that its only "indefinite" cause we know in arbcomspeak, indefinite means "fuck off and don't come back" ....Whatever issue soap had, you probably (no definitely) made it even worse.. good Job ArbCom (just Com, you guys have no idea how to "arbitrate" )-- Stemoc 02:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply gobsmacked by this. Really need to have some information here. Jus  da  fax   02:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who was hanging out on IRC during some of the relevant periods is probably better for everyone to leave things as they are.©Geni (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been critical of overly vague announcements by the Committee in the past, but I'm not really sure what we can provide beyond this. I think this is as much as we can say, though if you have specific questions that don't involve identifying targets, we can try to answer them if we feel we can.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All you need to turn it from "zomg conspiracy" to "makes sense" are three things:
 * For  off-wiki harassment of on  Y is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. Ban can be appealed to the arbitration committee, admin rights through RFA, etc
 * IMO anyway. Prodego  talk 03:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone ought to talk to you about trying to use Logic here... SQL Query me!  10:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do have a few questions, actually:
 * Over what period of time did the alleged harassment take place? Was it a long-term pattern (I would define "long-term" as a year or more), or a more recent development?
 * Has Soap been warned about this behavior in the past? Was he sufficiently able to respond to these allegations before the committee decided to act?
 * Has the committee outlined a specific appeals process for Soap should he ever decide to request overturning his ban?
 * Hopefully the answers to these questions will not involve divulging any sensitive or personally-identifying information. Soap is a highly trusted member of our community; I'd like to believe that the committee would not have acted in such a clandestine manner unless it were deemed absolutely necessary. Kurtis (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The behavior has been over the past month or so. He was warned repeatedly, and the Committee was in contact with him via email before the ban and desysop were placed. The ban can be appealed, like other ArbCom bans, to the Committee. He is aware of this fact. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's all I needed to know. I personally hope that this ban is temporary, and that Soap will return once he gets his life sorted out. Very disheartening news, but maybe some time away from the project is necessary for the time being. Kurtis (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would only differ in one spot with what GW said, and that is the warning aspect. He was warned, but not by the arbitration committee unless I missed something. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * no, it seems personal, apparently he somehow offended GW on IRC and she took it personally..sorry but unless it was an "actual wiki related abuse", the ARBCOM should have NO control over this...at all. it is NOT their jurisdiction....again IRC =!Wikipedia...-- Stemoc 05:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * From what are you drawing that conclusion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Its apparently obvious from the last comment he made before you banned him again on IRC...btw, #wikipedia-en is not under Arbcom jurisdiction so you should avoid using it as such..-- Stemoc 06:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are in possession of any special information, or have any valued insight on this matter. Please stop spouting shit, not every situation needs a dedicated drama monger. HighInBC 06:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , Per HighInBC, your assumption is incorrect and reflects the fact that you have not seen the evidence. The critical evidence in this matter is not public and the Committee will not be posting it - to do so would amplify its harassment potential. Further, consideration of off-wiki evidence of harassment is provided for in WP:OWH. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, But i'm more aware of the issue than everyone else involved in this discussion and yes i have information but I can't share it since it violates the ToU, i'm not an idiot so I'm pointing it out as i see it..and as it stands this was not something the arbcom should have been involved in at all, this was a personal feud or made personal by one of the parties involved and the fact that arbcom decided to butt themselves into this for the sake of one of its own is quite silly. This was never an arbcom issue, why did GW intentionally make it one?...The only course of action was and still is the desysopping of soap and only as a sign of the arbcom's involvement, blocking (yes its a block) him should NEVER been an option....This is a public issue, and as someone pointed out below, "Super Mario Effect" should have come in play but arbcom always seems to think its above the law somehow, they are NOT.-- Stemoc 06:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. We'll just have to disagree on the outcome. My only addition would be that the issue was raised with the Committee by a third party, not by a Committee member. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Stemoc, I saw the evidence; it was baffling. The block/ban/desysop are perfectly in order. Kindly stop blaming this on GW, because I consider those comments to be a. lacking completely in good faith; b. clear personal attacks; c. totally silly since the decision obviously had broad support. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And you are sure they were not taken 'out of context'?, again this issue began just over a month ago..this isn't an ongoing issue and if the arbcom starts banning people albeit admins for something like that, makes you wonder if there is honour amongst thieves ....I'm not a fan of eniki admins but soap was an exception, regardless of his personal issue, he did NOT abuse his rights on the wiki (he could have, he had many chances to do so but did not)..ironic how since the GG incident, seems like everyone on wikipedia is treading on eggshells ..its not me lacking completely in good faith, its the arbcom...a. they have just shown that they are willing to block people outside of their jurisdiction....b. are willing to involve themselves in matters involving their own c. Are trying to stretch their powers to the limit....Soap had one of the highest votes ever received by a candidate at RfA..so at one point we come up with a new resolution to fixing the ongoing RfA problem, and the next, we find a loophole to block them without a proper trial....It would have been 10 years for Soap on wikipedia in just over a week, that won't happen now..looks like there is a use-by-date now...one word could some this all up, pathetic. -- Stemoc 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and the Arbitration Committee are not justice systems or legal bodies. One of our obligations is to protect the encyclopedia and its users from harassment, which trumps any perceived right to posses administrative tools or edit the encyclopedia.  Evidence of private harassment was presented by multiple parties and about twenty or so people (current, outgoing, and incoming Arbs) had an opportunity to examine this evidence and its context.   I realize that you and many others feel that Soap was a valuable member of this community, and I'm sure I speak for other members of the Committee when I thank him for his service to the encyclopedia and the community and wish him well.  But this behavior was unacceptable regardless of whatever our feelings about Soap or whatever excuse, context, or explanation can be conjured from examining public comments, which completely ignores private behavior which you are not aware of and I doubt you would defend if you had knowledge of it.    Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are not the justice system then stop acting like the Judge, Jury and the Executioner!!!. Yes, protect the wiki, from idiots not from good long term contributors. The so-called evidence were definitely out of context, as I have been saying from the start and none of it were on "THE English Wikipedia" which is where Arbcom's jurisdiction starts and ends.. Congratulations ArbCom, because you are a group of people who have NO F idea how to arbitrate, you just made another (one of the 100's we already have on wikipedia) good editor a bonafide "sock"...Well Done, the reason why we have so many socks and vandals on wiki is because you people seem to "create" them out of your own "sheer stupidity..You can't even arbitrate a spat between 2 one-year olds and yet you are doing more damage than good over the last 10 years..Definitely time for a new ArbCom Reform, cause you guys act more like the people in an Asylum than the ones guarding them..-- Stemoc 21:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the policy Harassment, this behavior is within the Committee's jurisdiction. I'm sorry you are aggrieved on behalf of Soap, but the Committee also has to consider the multiple victims of this behavior as well.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Must have been petty bad behavior to bypass the Super Mario Effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 02:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps there isn't a rouge admin cabal after all?  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Either that or more likely the SuperMarioEffect is less real than some think. If this had been a serious issue about misuse of tools then I could see the committee simply taking the tools away and leaving the former admin unbanned; but if this was harassment, and we have a ten to one decision by Arbcom that it was, then a ban is appropriate. Does indefinite without a minimum time period mean that the ban could be reversed quite quickly once suitable assurances are forthcoming from Soap?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And there goes 2 months in a row with a net increase in the number of Admins... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All I will say is that I saw it coming and that I believe he needs to take a break from IRC in general. No further comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This news truly saddens me. I have been present and involved in some recent issues with Soap, but I never expected this result; frankly, I think it might be a bit drastic, but that isn't my call, and I may be missing vital information. A loss of a great editor and admin, I will say that. What a shame. MJ94 (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I for one welcome this new policing of the IRC channels. The perception that wikipedia IRC chans are 'not wikipedia' and that anything there can slide is what led to the throatpunching culture of IRC. Of course this just means now that all the people who really dont want their IRC activities held against them will migrate to a new Super Sekret channel they can control. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I find this to be interesting. I don't doubt that Soap has engaged in inappropriate off-wiki behaviour and likely does need a break from the project, but it seems as though this decision was made with an unseemly haste. Feel free to take my sentiments with a grain of salt, as I'm obviously not privy to all of the details. I'm just speaking from an outsider's perspective. Kurtis (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ?? The off wiki interactions I've had with Soap were strictly positive.  I never expected to see this.—cyberpower  Chat:Online 14:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In this instance, there's not a great deal more that can be said. I can confirm that the issue was serious and ongoing, that the Committee did contact Soap prior to the decision being undertaken, and that I fully believe it to have been the appropriate response. We will take action regarding off-wiki harassment if we can conclusively determine that the off-wiki account is operated by the same individual as one on Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please post the voting. Who voted and did they support or oppose this remedy. We elect trusted members of Wikipedia to serve on the Committee and to handle matters that require confidentiality. Knowing the vote helps ensure accountability and provides at least a little transparency.  Jehochman Talk 18:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The voting is available under the original announcement link at the top of this section.Amortias (T)(C) 18:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen nothing but positive contribs from Soap so extremely surprised to see this...., Well It looks like Soap will be having a New Year away from Wikipedia!. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the reason you opposed this decision?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I second this question. So far we are being asked to accept this action purely on faith, yet obviously at least one ArbCom member disagreed. Jus  da  fax   04:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My opposition stems from the lack of an ArbCom warning to Soap. There was no real attempt at mitigation to resolve the actual issue at hand, in my opinion, and my fear is that this motion has only exasperated issues for all involved, forcing more harassment on those who have already been harassed. And we've seen it on Arb Mail to a degree already. Had I had a chance to opine in the original discussion, I would have, and would have commented about this. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What policy did Soap violate? "Pattern of harassment in off-site venues" is a hilariously awful explanation. That sounds like someone got their feelings hurt and went running to the police. Townlake (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:HARASSMENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which he's continued with socks. Here in fact. . Doug Weller  talk 14:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Those comments are definitely not helping his case. Kurtis (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Case? — Ched : ?  23:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't reflect well on him. Kurtis (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone thinks that this means I'm now suddenly against Soap, please see this exchange between myself and Prodego. Kurtis (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How would one feel if they were banned without justification? His reaction is normal and something i was actually expecting and honestly will not condone....and regarding the Hand Sanitizer account comment on this page, I asked him about it on IRC and i was told by him that MJ94 tried to hack into his account around the time he stopped doing his admin chores and was more active on IRC than on the wiki...Our wiki loses more good users because of the abruptness of the arbcom, please stick to rubber stamping..-- Stemoc 01:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I get it now. Thanks guys. Townlake (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I've had "fun" interactions with the person before (never called ArbCom/ops about it though) and really I just think he needed a long term/permaban from Freenode. I don't think an indefinite ban is warranted in this case from onwiki, as the offwiki behaviour was really just confined to one place and was easily solvable with a IRC ban. Socking though, definitely puts the issue firmly in at least giving him a year off from Wikipedia. I really see a view to a hopefully successful ban appeal a year from now. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What, pray tell, is the difference (in this brave new world) between the perception of a lack of "judicial" transparency and an actual lack thereof? Perhaps we all need to reread our Kafka. Juan Riley (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the comments above sound positively KGBish. Though I am sure the arbitrary committee (oops?) have the best interest of wikipedia at heart. :) And don't attack me feeling this way. Look at the perception. Juan Riley (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am uncomfortable reading this discussion and seeing implied suggestions of possible wrong-doing without any clear and direct opportunity provided to address the issue. It is known that GorillaWarfare has been subject to mistreatment / harassment in the past, which is deplorable, though ArbCom being able to draw on the experience of someone targeted for attack is useful for its collective experience.  I believe it is fair to her to ask directly...   Were you the target of harassment which led to this ban?   If so, was the harassment of others sufficient to justify taking action, and if not, did you consider recusal?  I don't think there is any doubt that the outcome would have been the same, but I think avoiding any further speculative commentary by a direct response is desirable.  Obviously, GorillaWarfare has the right to decline to comment.  EdChem (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As stated above by Euryalus, My only addition would be that the issue was raised with the Committee by a third party, not by a Committee member. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not vote in this decision since it came before January 1, but my personal decision that a site ban was needed was based on evidence that had nothing to do with GorillaWarfare.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the harassment was directed at me, yes. As Euryalus stated above, concerns were raised by people who were not members of the Committee. The harassment of others was completely sufficient to justify a ban, in my opinion. As with any issue we handle, I considered whether or not I'd need to recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, let me say that I am sorry to hear that you have again been the target of harassment. No one deserves such mistreatment and I am glad that you continue to contribute to the project.  Secondly, I would have no problem with you or anyone else subject to abuse raising concerns / making a complaint / requesting action, though I am glad to hear that the request came from outside the committee (solely as I would anticipate recusal by an Arbitrator who initiated a request for action for harassment of themselves).  I am presently involved in a real-world (i.e. offline) situation of harassment where police action seems increasingly likely, so I do know that action is needed at times.  I am pleased to hear that there was sufficient actionable evidence for a ban to be justified so that consideration of the abuse you received was not needed as a basis for action (and thus the recusal question becomes academic).  Questions related to recusal are not infrequent for ArbCom and I have concerns in that area, but those are better discussed in a general setting rather than here.  Thank you for giving direct answers to my questions.  EdChem (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to respond in general to the statements being made here and in the TDA case below about "nothing happened on-wiki, this isn't arbcom's business" and "banning for off-wiki harassment won't stop the off-wiki harassment, why bother doing anything", because I find that to be a pretty problematic view. I think the bottom line for me is that in a healthy community, you can either be a community member in good standing, or you can be someone who carries out behaviors that harm community members. You cannot be both, because no matter where you're carrying out those harmful behaviors, you're harming the community with them. We, as the "on-wiki" community, cannot force you to pick one or the other; you're free to decide it's more important to you to engage in an off-wiki campaign of harassment/doxxing/whatever (maybe you feel you're speaking truth to power, maybe you feel you're whistleblowing, maybe you just feel that by god, that person deserves it). However, once you make your choice and decide to go with the off-wiki harm, we also are not obligated to pretend you're not someone who's targeting members of our community for harassment, or to allow you to continue participating in our community and interacting with people you may be doing your best to harm elsewhere. On-wiki blocking of someone carrying out off-wiki harmful actions may not stop them from continuing those off-wiki actions (or from socking on-wiki), but it does draw a clear line of behavioral expectations: you can choose to be either "person who contributes to and benefits from the community and its work" OR "person who feels that participating in the community is less important than harassing community members" - but you can't choose both, because they're fundamentally incompatible. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A sorry from Anna
I would like to explain my post at Soap's talk. I saw the brown box saying he is banned. It contains a link titled "annoucement" and that link is this. It is a version just before the edit that added "discuss this" was added. I clicked the announcement link and saw no further explanation. I checked his contribs. I checked cases and saw no Arbcom case for Soap. I thought, how odd, a ban, desysop, talk revoke, so severe, yet where is the discussion? I had to search at Wikipediocracy, that conspiracy-theorising, paranoia-fest of a tabloid site just to get a clue about what happened. Going there was a last resort.

Anyhow, I am sorry about my post coming across as drama. You all know of my distaste for that. I just wanted to say how the community may see things.

I have no comment on Arbcom handling this. We are talking about lot of very trusted and intelligent members all agreeing on what is best to protect Wikipedia. The last thing I would think is that this was about power or abusing it. That would be silly.

So, I have removed my post at Soap's talk. I meant what I said, but shouldn't have linked or expressed it that way.

Please, in future, if a matter cannot be explained, I would urge Arbcom or any backroom part of Wikipedia to at least make a statement saying that they cannot explain. The world outside of Wikipedia is filled with things kept out of public view. Transparency is so important here. At least saying why transparency is impossible may be a good plan otherwise the slippery slope. So, maybe "This is a regrettable but necessary.....unfortunately, to protect the privacy of.....sincerely wish we could provide further details, however....if at all possible, would....absolutely necessary....value transparency, however in this case...." just to show the community that the government here is, well, not like the real-world.

Oh, I was there and saw the day before, and it was pretty offensive and weird and I didn't know who it was but now I do and I made him go away. And I saw more of the same the next day and it was gross too. Trusting him as a sysop after that would be out of the question.

Please tell me if I am talking nonsense or have missed something terribly obvious. I often do the latter. In good faith, feeling sorry for the TLDR, and with great respect to all, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, we do not go into detail on harassment issues to avoid perpetuating and drawing attention to the harassment. I personally feel that the fact that this was handled offwiki and that it involved harassment is sufficient to imply that we cannot go into further detail, but perhaps I'm alone in that feeling and we should be more specific. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. However, in the understandable absence of specifics, why not a statements saying that no specifics can be given? How about "This is a regrettable situation. Please understand that we would give specifics if it were at all possible. We have made the decision to not go into details on harassment issues to avoid perpetuating and drawing attention to the harassment." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that's a good idea. I'll definitely keep your suggestion in mind for future matters, thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that nobody else has considered adding such a disclaimer. It would do wonders in strengthening the committee's relationship with the rest of the community. Kurtis (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an extraordinarily bad idea to accuse someone of harassment without some evidence of what the accusation entails.  Harassment runs the gamut from bothersome to illegal so leaving it open-ended is a problem.  Besides the obvious BLP implications, it puts ArbCom in the position of enforcing Terms of Use rather than dispute resolution.  These blocks/bans that are based on findings and accusations of off-site harassment need to be from the WMF Office as an office action implementing WMF TOU.  This is beyond the scope of editor disputes and such things can explode with IRL consequences with such broad, defamatory language being attributed to a small body.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a Wikipedia policy on harassment, and have since 2005. It has had a section noting that "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning" for at least the last year. ArbCom is not enforcing the Terms of Use, ArbCom is doing their job; enforcing enwiki policy. I can't see any place where they accused someone of harassment without evidence - just places where they accused people of harassment without evidence you can see. And as someone who happens to prioritise the victim above the harasser, that's perfectly fine. Ironholds (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well put, and thanks. I for one am satisfied with this response. I knew Soap years ago when I was on IRC, and found him to be congenial, intelligent and humorous. It was very hard for me to accept this action. I still suspect he may have had good reason to lose control, but whatever happened, it appears he blew it badly. Given the respect I have for you, I'm going to nod regretfully and urge other concerned parties to accept this admittedly extreme action. My best wishes, thanks again, and Happy New Year.  Jus  da  fax   15:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If evidence exists but cannot be seen and verified, that's no better than no evidence at all, because either way it is impossible to confirm and and evaluate it. "Bigfoot is real, although I have no proof" is essentially the same as "Bigfoot is real, but I can't show you the pictures". Everyking (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The evidence exists and has been seen and verified, but your complaint is that it was done by the community committee specifically empowered by community policy to do it, which is complaint that does not belong here. To change policy, address proposals at the talk pages of the policies in issue or VPP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A big +1 to Alan, here. There's something almost-funny in this repeated insistence that the only way to trust arbcom is to make it irrelevant. We had an election literally a month ago, with a higher voting turnout than any previous election: it's very difficult to argue that the people who reviewed the evidence and concluded it was harassing can't be trusted to be telling the truth immediately after they've been endorsed and confirmed by a big chunk of the community. Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A good point in general, but just for the sake of clarity, since there are two related discussions here: the Soap decision was made by the 2015 committee, although the matter was raised during the transition period and the new 2016 arbs also had the opportunity to review the evidence. A couple others have already posted above, but to add to their comments, I also saw the evidence available and agreed with this decision.
 * On DHeyward's point, WP:HARASSMENT is a site policy. We have plenty of routine blocks with the generic summary "Personal attacks or harassment". We have a template, uw-hblock, which has been used hundreds of times. Describing an unwelcome pattern of behavior is not accusing someone of a crime. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's not what's happening. ArbCom called it "harassment," not an unwelcome pattern of behavior.  Nor did ArbCom outline the behavior that would differentiate it from more serious harassment accusations.  A blocking admin for routine blocks better have a diff to support their accusation.  Part of the harassment policy is WP:AOHA.  ArbCom doesn't get a policy pass because "it's difficult." It's problematic to make accusations of harassment without context.  Without detail, there is no template and furthermore it's extremely contradictory to downplay off-site harassment as a routine on-wiki complaint that is supported with diffs versus the "this harassment is so extreme we can't give links."  It's either as severe as on-wiki harassment, where diffs are appropriate.  Or, it exceeds on-site boundaries and diffs would be too much.  Either way, it's a BLP violation to make such an accusation and cast such aspersions without providing the reason and the only body that should be making that call is WMF.  I have no doubt ArbCom has the evidence but it's rather disconcerting that they are reluctant to engage WMF and Legal before calling someone a "harasser" without a diff or context.  What aspersions, without a diff, are okay?  Can I name someone, on-wiki, that has harassed me off-wiki?  I doubt it because it's a policy violation which ArbCom is ignoring.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's does not work. It is policy consensus that the community elected committee do it not the WMF. Moreover, whatever your issue is, it is merely answered by a slight bit more verbose rewording that conveys in the context of Wikipedia -- which is how Arbcom's words must be read -- the same thing they already said: . . . for breach of Harrassment that occurred off-site, User is indefinitely banned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Go read how that policy is implemented. A) it's part of dispute resolution so a dispute needs to be identified (it isn't). B) Off-wiki Harassment is defined in that policy as an extension of "No personal attacks" and is an aggravating factor in the aforementioned dispute. My "issue" is that none of this is part of an On-Wiki dispute resolution process which is necessary for ArbCom to be involved per the policy you highlighted and ArbCom's charter.  With just pure external harassment, and no underlying dispute, it's better handled by WMF Legal and Safety.  ArbCom is not providing the nexus of a dispute and is really just naming someone as a harasser.  That's not okay, potentially defamatory and unwise as ArbCom can't address real-world harassment.  Making it invisible isn't addressing it properly.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I had already read it, and I interpret it generally as Arbcom has in the motion. You must be referring, in this context, to WP:Dispute resolution, specifically its provision in the Conduct dispute resolution section allowing confidential off-wiki communication in resolving conduct disputes, and also WP:Arbcom, which explicitly exists for conduct resolution in hearing sometimes off-wiki communication cases. They have identified the dispute: alleged and then found breaching WP:Harassment conduct by an identified Wikipedia User. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the cart before the horse. "Off-wiki" is an aggravating factor, not in and of itself, a violation.  Aggravating factors are rarely considered violations on their own (i.e. statutory rape might have an aggravating factor if the perpetrator is 5 years older than the victim; but we wouldn't simply find being 5 years older is a crime without the underlying conviction of a crime).  ThNeither of these cases identified the underlying dispute that the off-wiki conduct aggravated.  Many editors have off-wiki disputes and as long as they haven't brought it on-wiki, it's not been relevant. It becomes relevant when a disput on-wiki manifests itself.  For Soap, they just listed the action they took (and I am much more comfortable with that) while TDA they listed a remedy without identifying a dispute which essentially accused him of harassment, but not harassment within the confines of en-wp.  The problem is not that evidence was provided off-wiki or considered off-wiki, its that there was no on-wiki conduct or disputes being resolved as TDA has had no on-wiki conduct for 3 months.  I don't doubt there was a complaint but if it's that serious that his off-wiki behavior requires removal, it should be WMF wide.  If it's not that serious then why is this remedy necessary?  Are we going to bring Twitter wars to ArbCom because two twitter users happen to be editors?  If "off-wiki" harassment is now more than just an aggravating factor of an on-wiki dispute, the policy should be changed and the avalanche of complaints should begin (I have a few of my own).  --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your equating any of this or these words to crime is nonsense. As for TDA, they specifically identified the dispute, something so long lasting, it required a prior case. As for Wikipedia editors carrying their disputes off-site, that's just generally odd behavior, which probably accounts for the reason why such cases don't come up often among the thousands of editors.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't understand the distinction you see between the wording in the Soap ban ("For off-wiki harassment") and in the TDA ban ("For continuing harassment"); could you elaborate? The main difference is that TDA's announcement refers to the prior context in which he was warned that misconduct in any area could result in a ban. Superficially, that would seem to be the clearer statement.
 * On a side note, if we must have legalistic analogies, could we use examples other than rape? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I read a synopsys and missed the preamble and just read Soap is banned and desysopped. Yes, it is concerning if the conduct is all off-wiki and the dispute was not tied to on-wiki behavior and their is no nexus of how the off-wiki dispute disrupted the creation of the Encyclopedia. Calling it harassment without constraint is extremely problematic given false light statutes that exist almost everywhere.  As for the side note, why is rape aggravating factors objectionable over any other?  Aggravating factors are not in and of themselves the issue.  If you like, make it a harassment scenario where one party is a supervisor and the other subordinate.  That's an aggravating factor in a harassment suit but is only an issue if one party complains that it's harassment.  Harassment in the workplace can occur between peers as well as supervisor/subordinate but without an underlying and substantiated complaint, the aggravating factor is meaningless.  It's essential to determine whether the underlying complaint exists before applying the aggravating factor.  Peer/peer or supervisor/subordinate roles are meaningless unless there is a determination that harassment occurred.  After that determination is made, aggravating circumstances are assessed.  In this case, an on-wiki dispute needs to be determined before the aggravating factor of off-wiki harassment is considered.  It's not clear that happened as the on-wiki dispute is not listed. TDA, for example, seems to imply that the harassment is unrelated to GamerGate but because his sanction extends to conduct outside GamerGate, he can be banned.  Exactly what was the on-wiki dispute that was aggravated by off-wiki harassment?  If we look at previous cases such as Lightbreather, it's clear that the off-wiki harassment was tied to an on-wiki case.  It's not necessary to go into detail about what the off-wiki harassment was but it's essential to link it to the on-wiki dispute.  We have many users that make disparaging personal attacks "off-wiki" but don't bring them on-wiki (I personally have experienced it as a victim).  We rejected "badsites" a while ago and unless/until that policy changes, disputes that don't manifest themselves "on-wiki" are beyond what ArbCom can control.  Accepting only a few "off-site" harassment cases would be arbitrary and unworkable.  If the dispute is "on-wiki" then name it.  The off-wiki and private evidence does not need to be disclosed but its hard to see why the parties and dispute are not named. It's harder still to see why language like "harassment" or "stalking" would be use when the policy specifically says real world and wiki world definitions are different and those terms are sensitive (See the harrasment policy and read the "What is Not" section).  ArbCom doesn't need such wording to implement its will. --DHeyward (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a policy, WP:HARASSMENT, that describes some unwelcome types of behavior. It is possible that someone will be banned for violating that policy. Are you suggesting that we (as in the community, not arbcom) change the name of that policy? Nobody has said anything here about stalking, though the common term "wikistalking" did turn into "wikihounding" awhile back; is that the precedent you mean? Or are you suggesting that this type of action should just be a quiet arbcomblock with no publicly identified policy violation? I'm open to considering how we implement and announce these things, because we're not here to put scarlet letters on people, but I'm not clear on what you're actually suggesting.
 * These arguments about "jurisdiction" and "aggravating factors" and so on seem to be grounded in tempting-but-unsustainable analogies between wikipedia processes and legal ones. The view that a specific on-wiki dispute should be identified drives a truck through the loophole Fluffernutter describes below - if a dispute is identified, so are the disputants and likely victims. This also seems at odds with your other argument that labeling the behavior is problematic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, a glance at User:Soap and User:The Devil's Advocate clearly shows ya'll do, in fact, put scarlet letters people's user pages. Or at least pointless big red stop signs. Which is hardly consistent with Banning_policy: Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. The block log entries are more than sufficient without having to mess with the user's talk pages. NE Ent 19:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree on that one, but I think we need a community discussion on this, because those templates are used for more than just arbcom bans. There is a small (tiny!) discussion about potentially rewording that template, following the deletion of the "banned means banned" template, but you may be interested in making a broader proposal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleting the template would require a community discussion. The committee choosing not to use them for arbcom banned editors would only require a committee discussion, and, after it became apparent they serve no useful encyclopedic purpose, make it easier to gather the necessary community support for not using them for community banned editors. NE Ent 21:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording is straight from the policy WP:OWH Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor. The operative directive is "will be."  It's not "may be."  It's policy that off-wiki must be aggravating an on-wiki situation to be acted on.  The other terms come from policy as well, where it defines what harassment is not WP:HA: Like the word stalk, harass carries real-life connotations – from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct – and must be used judiciously and with respect to these connotations. and finally, from that same policy regarding accusations: WP:AOHA It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment.....  I didn't conjure these terms from a hat.  Considering all these terms are, in fact, written in the policy, I don't see that this is comparing wiki vs. legal process.  If you cannot name the on-wiki dispute, then naming someone as a "harasser" is problematic.  ArbCom cannot/will not point to the evidence of harassment.  ArbCom cannot/will not name the en-wiki dispute that the harassment is aggravating.  The presumption is that ArbCom has the basis for blocking/banning but because they cannot/will not disclose all the elements necessary in the policy, they should NOT be publicly declaring anyone guilty "harassment" because it has "real-life connotations" that cannot be ignored.  This isn't meant to say the elements haven't been met, rather, the inability to disclose the necessary elements precludes harsh pronouncements.  Blocking/banning isn't the problem, it's the declaration they are guilty of harassment.  Policy doesn't support that public declaration.  A quiet arbcomblock would be better though implementing that would require some thought, whence my suggestion it be pushed up to WMF after ArbCom has made a finding.  They only do quiet blocks/bans and won't make a declaration.  In addition, with global accounts throughout, WMF should also decide whether their office action is WMF-wide.  Without that, the problem might just move to commons with access to email and talk pages there and WMF should have the opportunity to review.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A quiet arbcomblock might indeed be the best way to do this in certain situations. I still do not think that the WMF would get involved in cases like this, and I agree that the problem might move to Commons. If I'm right about the WMF our only hope then would be Commons Administrators. Doug Weller  talk 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doug here. I don't think it's likely or realistic that the WMF will get involved in this type of issue, knowing they'd end up doing it for all of their projects, but we'll have to see what they say. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And they may not. It doesn't solve the problem that ArbCom is making an accusation that they cannot/will not back up.  It's required that they do so by policy, common sense and common decency - if for no other reason than context.  The accusation of "harassment" has requirements of disclosure outlined above in the policy and for sound reasons regarding the IRL definition of harassment. Refraining from the accusation doesn't change the ability to ban/block.  The rationale that blocking without notice creates a trust issue with ArbCom is not a valid reason to inflict harm on the reputation of a living person.  Protect the victim by banning if necessary but ArbCom is not relieved of the responsibility to the accused.  Corporate HR departments learned this the hard way and ArbCom need not repeat that folly.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Policy does not require the Arbitration Committee to reveal private information in order to "back up" the ban; in fact, it explicitly allows the Arbitration Committee to handle matters where privacy is important (Arbitration Policy) and expects that arbitrators keep those matters in confidence (Arbitration/Policy). I would say that common sense and common decency would also support this, per the points that Fluffernutter made so well elsewhere on this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But this suspension of transparency in the name of "common sense and common decency" is precisely the point where holes are created where trucks groaning with diabolically engineered agendas can drive right through. Perhaps another small independent and occasional monitoring committee should be created to oversight and ratify the propriety of decisions like this? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And then a committee to monitor that committee to oversight and ratify the propriety of their decisions? More seriously, you might want to go opine on this RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's getting silly. There is a balance point if you are you committed to openness. As for Jimbo Wales adjudicating, he has repeatedly demonstrated he is compromised by not having the welfare of committed content builders at heart. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A quick point here: I have officially been an arb for all of four days and it is abundantly clear that successful diabolical conspiracies among fifteen people in different time zones communicating via mailing list are highly unlikely. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Goodness... all of four days! In that case, what possible distortions could ever develop? Do you want a system the (uninformed) community can have confidence in? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct. The ban does not.  The accusation, does though.  If you are going to accuse people of things that range from real-life connotations – from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct.  I don't care that you banned them.  What's sad is hiding behind "harassment" as a way to ban without scrutiny.  ArbCom bans for many reasons even as small as "Not Here."  But when the ban has to be hidden behind secret harassment instead of "not here," it raises a lot of flags.  Again, the ban isn't the problem. In confidence isn't he problem.  The problem is that ArbCom wants a "reason' to provide to the community.  The problem comes down to trust and ArbCom is violating policy to create a mantle of credibility.  There is nothing that justifies calling a living person a "harasser" without the ability for others to scrutinize it.  A body that has the trust of the community would just ban users (those communities exist and no proof is needed to trust those in power).  But here, the accusation is made to justify the sanction.  The accusation is made because credibility is lacking but that lack of credibility is the same reason the community wants details.  When ArbCom has the credibility to make a pronouncement that "User X is banned because they violated Wikipedia policies" - they can start claiming what private information that don't need to disclose.  When theitr crdibility is so fractured that they need to accuse someone harassment - which the policy explicitly says can be "from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct" - theres's a problem.  If you disagree, you can search for that phrase and find it verbatim.  ArbCom should not be using terms and findings that are explicitly so broad and defamatory without context.  Was the harassment "unseemly" or "criminal?"  Without detail, ArbCom should STFU about harassment and focus on the encyclopedia and a ban.  Don't couch it in an indefensible phrase and don't treat the finding of "harassment" as a righteous and undeniable fact when the policy on harassment clearly outlines how broad and unrighteous such an accusation can be.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have people on this page complaining that we've given too much information, and people complaining we've given too little. There is frankly no way to please everyone. I disagree with you that a ban based on WP:HARASSMENT becomes defamatory simply because every user can't gawk at the harassment themselves. If you think this is the case, you should perhaps also consider taking this point up with administrators and oversighters who routinely revision-delete or suppress harassment by harassment-blocked users. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll put it another way: "Policy says that harassment is so broad on en-wp that accusations and evidence must be specific and credible. Situations that preclude publishing specific and credible evidence should not be called 'harassment'."  ArbCom is granted many powers to block/ban/restrict editors that such a requirement will not hinder enforcement.  I don't particularly care about revdel and oversight as they are less defamatory than a site ban (in fact, I've seen revdels overturned because the admin overreached).  revdels and oversight isn't going to show up in an HR hiring search.  Ste bans for harassment, however, will.  If Google site banned my potential employee for harassment, I am not going to investigate "why."  That Wikipedia defines harassment in it's policy as extending "from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct"  might be relevant to wikipedians, it's not relevant to an employer.  They see "harassment", "major website" and "round file."  As someone that has stated harassment by TDA, would you be willing to testify at trial that he is unemployable because of his actions here?  I grant that you may be willing to do so, and may be justified in doing so, but the next obvious, and inescapable question is "why?"  As ArbCom chooses not to answer "why" (and for good reason) they should also refrain from the accusation.  Ban.  STFU.  If confidence in ArbCom is lacking for such actions, the issue isn't with the accused.  When the plague reigned in Europe and the people pressed the court for answers, they found "witches."  While scaling them against the weight of a duck provided fair trial for floatability, it hardly proved witchcraft, or even less, accountability for plague death.  Many would have complained about the process, but it's another fallacy to point to the number of process claims as proof of legitimacy.  Go back to first principles: Is the conduct undeniably harassment affecting en-wp editors or users? If yes, does outlining the harassment cause more damage to the victim?  If yes, "Ban indef for "Not Here" because those activities are not here to build WP. If no and the harassment can be documented, outline the harassment publicly and ban for the outlined harassment.  Super Sekret Harassment charges and pronouncements are forbidden by policy.  Note that the editor is banned either way.  The only difference is the serious accusation is supported by serious evidence and the "not here" evidence need not have explicit evidence.  Discretion is always the better part of valor and WP will be better of fby not tarnishing reputations especially when the secret evidence won't last beyond the mailing list.  Imagine "I see you were accused of harassment and banned from Wikipedia for off-site harassment in 2001 and unable to find employment since. Why?  Well when I was 14 I kept emailing an admin to lift their block.  I was so frustrated, I created hundreds of accounts so I could email them." and that's the lucky person that gets to explain it.  Who wants to destroy opportunities for "Clock boy" because they made a mistake on Wikipedia?    --DHeyward (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll put it another way: "Policy says that harassment is so broad on en-wp that accusations and evidence must be specific and credible. Situations that preclude publishing specific and credible evidence should not be called 'harassment'."  ArbCom is granted many powers to block/ban/restrict editors that such a requirement will not hinder enforcement.  I don't particularly care about revdel and oversight as they are less defamatory than a site ban (in fact, I've seen revdels overturned because the admin overreached).  revdels and oversight isn't going to show up in an HR hiring search.  Ste bans for harassment, however, will.  If Google site banned my potential employee for harassment, I am not going to investigate "why."  That Wikipedia defines harassment in it's policy as extending "from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct"  might be relevant to wikipedians, it's not relevant to an employer.  They see "harassment", "major website" and "round file."  As someone that has stated harassment by TDA, would you be willing to testify at trial that he is unemployable because of his actions here?  I grant that you may be willing to do so, and may be justified in doing so, but the next obvious, and inescapable question is "why?"  As ArbCom chooses not to answer "why" (and for good reason) they should also refrain from the accusation.  Ban.  STFU.  If confidence in ArbCom is lacking for such actions, the issue isn't with the accused.  When the plague reigned in Europe and the people pressed the court for answers, they found "witches."  While scaling them against the weight of a duck provided fair trial for floatability, it hardly proved witchcraft, or even less, accountability for plague death.  Many would have complained about the process, but it's another fallacy to point to the number of process claims as proof of legitimacy.  Go back to first principles: Is the conduct undeniably harassment affecting en-wp editors or users? If yes, does outlining the harassment cause more damage to the victim?  If yes, "Ban indef for "Not Here" because those activities are not here to build WP. If no and the harassment can be documented, outline the harassment publicly and ban for the outlined harassment.  Super Sekret Harassment charges and pronouncements are forbidden by policy.  Note that the editor is banned either way.  The only difference is the serious accusation is supported by serious evidence and the "not here" evidence need not have explicit evidence.  Discretion is always the better part of valor and WP will be better of fby not tarnishing reputations especially when the secret evidence won't last beyond the mailing list.  Imagine "I see you were accused of harassment and banned from Wikipedia for off-site harassment in 2001 and unable to find employment since. Why?  Well when I was 14 I kept emailing an admin to lift their block.  I was so frustrated, I created hundreds of accounts so I could email them." and that's the lucky person that gets to explain it.  Who wants to destroy opportunities for "Clock boy" because they made a mistake on Wikipedia?    --DHeyward (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt this hypothetical employer would distinguish between a site ban and a site block, nor do I think they would find banned more concerning than uw-hblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * "As a general rule, we do not go into detail on harassment issues to avoid perpetuating and drawing attention to the harassment." As lovely as that sounds, it conceals a big problem with the way the ArbCom operates. If we don't know what happened, how do we know that anything happened at all? How can we evaluate ArbCom actions if the ArbCom discloses nothing about the reasons for its actions? If the ArbCom voted to ban someone for something that never happened, how would we ever know the difference? I don't care about the specifics of the case&mdash;I don't need someone to assure me that all is well, or point me to somewhere to research it myself. I want the ArbCom to address the transparency problem. I want to stop seeing editors disappearing without seeing any evidence that they did anything wrong. Everyking (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's why I'm in favor of maintaining the final appeal option to Jimbo. If an editor were banned by ArbCom, and it were a truly arbitrary decision with absolutely no evidence backing it, Jimbo could certainly contact the Committee and say "What's going on here?". If there really were off-wiki harassment, he could be provided with details of why the ban occurred. If there were no such evidence, he would still have the option to overturn the ban and take whatever remedial action were appropriate. I can say, though, that while I was on the Committee, all such actions were taken only if the evidence was abundant and overwhelming, and anyone who knows me at all knows I would be the first to dissent (and not quietly) from any decision that was made on the basis of poor or no evidence. If anything, the Committee has often been accused of being too cautious to act in such cases, but it really does have to be shown to a very good degree of certainty. Anyone could register your or my name on some other site and start harassing someone. But providing full and public details, in a lot of cases, would be a violation of the privacy policy that arbitrators explicitly agree to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * One of ArbCom's responsibilities is "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons." This does not mean we must resolve them by making public matters that are unsuitable for public discussion. I personally think that the likelihood of every member of a fifteen-person committee being utterly corrupt is fairly slim, but if you disagree, perhaps you should start a push to change who handles such matters, and how. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes but this is neither North Korea or Soviet Russia, people will not accept an execution without knowing why..this is the "3rd" unknown ban or (firing) of an experienced editor without a valid reason in 7 days[though one is not related to the arbcom]...this seems so KGBish no? if this is the direction WMF is headed then its going to be a very slippery slope cause I'm surely not expecting this to get better..btw, the job of the Arbcom as i have mentioned many times above is to "arbitrate", stop playing the role of the Hangman. Banning is the FINAL option, not the ONLY option!.-- Stemoc 01:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone was executed? How did we do it?  Lethal injection, hanging, electric chair, guillotine, burning at the stake?  And were the proper number of observers in attendance, as required by Wiki-Law? ... Oh, that's right, we're a website dedicated to making an encyclopedia ... so, I guess no editors were actually harmed in the making of this decision. BMK (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone known only by a pseudonym has been asked to find a new hobby instead of editing this website. Politely, it is something of a stretch to equate this with Stalinism and the KGB. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that people are not physically harmed does not excuse other forms of harm. Hyperbole seems a lesser sin than disregarding or downplaying abuse. As is clear from this discussion, we don't disregard harassment just because it only occurs in the digital realm. Everyking (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillarious, You have to see the wiki as a planet on its own since we don't only have contributors but readers from every corner of the planet that use this site...Its a know fact that when the arbcom bans someone, they ain't coming back..their WP:SO has either failed or has yet to bring back a 'real' contributor..most good editors that do get banned are either forced to create socks instantaneously or move to other sites for a short while only to come back again with a 'clean' account ..no one ever LEAVES....not even those banished by the WMF, infact, especially those 'forcefully' removed by the hierarchy, either it be WMF or the arbcom ..I warned the arbcom that the step they took in regards to the banning of a long-standing editor was unjustified and it is, cause unknowingly (surely they have already figured it by now) they have created another 'vandal', a term i no longer associate with vandalism..Being banned on wiki is the same as execution, I won't be surprised that either or both BMK and Euryalus are the 're-incarnation' of banned editors -- Stemoc 04:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I've had my suspicions about Euryalus for quite a while now, but I know  for certain  that I am a sock of a banned editor, have been for all 10 1/2 years I've been here. I suggest that all of my edits be dele...  wait... hold on a sec ... I know for certain... something... what the hell was it?  Oh, yeah, I know for certain that you are .... oh, what was it again? ... oh, yeah -- purple! YOU ARE PURPLE!  No, that's not it. ... oh dear ... it was, uh ... WRONG!! Yeah, that was it, you are really, really wrong, becasue I am not a sock, I am a GLOVE and damn proud of it. BMK (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You start with "Yes but", which implies you understand or agree with some amount of what I said, but then you insist on knowing the private evidence. Also, please note that the Arbitration Committee is not the WMF—we are volunteer editors, not employees. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Yes" was to the principal of the arbcom but the one you stated is at number 4, Why did you ignore the number 1 which is and to quote To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve...last i checked, in this case, the "community" was neither involved nor was there a case filed nor was proper procedure followed..the difference between this case and the "Devil's Advocate" case below is that only of of these 2 had "priors" so arbcom ignored rule 1 on this as well as rule 2 which is and quote To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users by blocking his talk page so that he can't fight this and yet somehow you feel that justice was served? so again, is this North Korea or Soviet Russia or is it not?...Yes, you are not the WMF but you were given this power by them, the community did elect the arbcom but not because they wanted to, but because we had too..-- Stemoc 03:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you read ARBPOL you would see that 1-5 are not steps but enumerate the powers delegated to the arbitration committee by the community. Further, the idea that the WMF made ArbCom or was part of the process of the committee's creation is patently false. The committee was created by Jimbo in 2004. That same year the first Arbitration policy was ratified by the community. In 2011, the second arbitration policy (that replaced the first) was ratified by the community. The idea that a power structure should not exist or does not have power over a user because they weren't part of the community at the time is patently false. Also, you are free to vote "no" to any and all candidates. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It runs into difficulty if the twisted interpretation means that ArbCom can sanction for IRC, Wikipediocracy comments or Reddit comments but not comments made on Commons or Russian Wikipedia. If the harasser says they are the WMF global user X and their comments were based on participation on Commons, would ArbCom say they have original jurisdiction since there is a common account? It's a slippery slope and en-arbcom is ill-equipped to deal with issues beyond en-wp disputes. The other stuff outside en-wp is aggravating factor but not sanctionable by en-Arbcom. Stomping their feet and claiming social justice does not change this basic fact. en-wp is A space in the WMF multiverse, it is not THE safe space on the intertubes. WMF needs to clarify that their arbitrary actions are a legal and policy quagmire. Their jurisdiction does not extend beyond en-wp and that includes original external harassment. Open an ArbCom DR case to establish jurisdiction and outline the en-wp dispute they are resolving. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "social justice" and everything to do with simple basic human decency and professionalism. If you're here to edit the encyclopedia in a constructive manner, you don't harass your fellow editors through off-wiki venues. Such conduct is corrosive and destructive to the basic principle of editors working together to write an Internet encyclopedia. Just as such conduct wouldn't be tolerated in a professional workplace, it shouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia. Let me ask you a question, DHeyward: Why do you believe that Wikipedia editors should have to agree to become targets for harassment, abuse and personal attacks to take part in editing an Internet encyclopedia? Do you think that the encyclopedia is more or less likely to be successful if it is known that editors are putting their personal safety, privacy and health at risk by deciding to edit the encyclopedia? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Another strawman. TDA is "not here" at all.  The question isn't whether harassment should be tolerated, its whether ArbCom is the appropriate body to declare someone off-wiki as a "harasser."  No workplace would tolerate harassment and would fire the harasser.  But they aren't daft enough to declare it to the world and make such a public accusation. Basic human decency extends to all.  Not naming the victim is part of it, so is not accusing a living person of a crime.  ArbCom is wholly unsuited to make determinations of whether off-site conduct rises to a legally sound definition of harassment which is why it's limited to only an aggravating factor in an on-wiki dispute.  The proper venue is WMF and it should be a WMF global ban.  If someone complained about TDA's comments on Commons, its clear that ArbCom would not address it and point the user to Commons DR even though it's external to en-wp.  NBSB: Why do you think it should be okay to harass from other WMF sites but not non-WMF sites (yup, same straw nonsense that you put out but it highlights that external to en-wp harassment is beyond the scope or ability of ArbCom to handle.  They are limited to resolving on-en-wiki disputes, not random stuff on the internet and certainly not chartered to accuse another editor of possibly criminal behavior. ArbCom needs the context of an on-wiki dispute to bracket their definition of harassment and the nexus it has with an en-wp dispute).  If the offsite conduct doesn't rise to the level of a WMF office action, then we should rethink what we are calling "harassment" as WMF is the liable party.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking of straw men, this chatter about a legally sound definition of harassment and accusing a living person of a crime is merely a violation of WP:NLT smothered in a sufficient quantity of sheep’s clothing to supply all of ArbCom with camouflage holiday sweaters. No one is talking about legal harassment here; if they were, they’d have called the police.  We’re talking, plainly, about violations of community policy that do not require that the perpetrator be arrested and imprisoned for the public good, but that suggest to ArbCom that the smooth functioning of Wikipedia’s Project will proceed more efficiently without the violator’s further predations. It is perfectly legal to violate any number of Wikipedia policies, and yet Wikipedia does not and should not countenance their violation.  Why insist on such an unnecessary and impractical standard for WP:HARASSMENT alone? This is not the place to attempt to nullify Wikipedia’s prohibition of off-site harassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break

 * This seems to say that ArbCom is exercising a veto over RfA by saying Soap may only regain his administrative tools following approval from the Arbitration Committee, and a successful Request for Adminship. Is this a typo or is Arbcom trying to claim the ability to say who can and can not run for RfA? ` J bh Talk  Moved from WP:ACN: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 13:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a rarely used valve. In this case, I presume it was used because if the user were to present at RfA, the confidential evidence wouldn't be available to the community for review. –xenotalk 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Xeno is correct. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I was unaware this was in ArbCom's toolbox. Has it been used and discussed by the community before? Where? In my opinion if the 'offence' was so bad the community can not be trusted to determine whether they should be an admin or not at RfA then the editor needs to be banned from the site completely. RfA is the ultimate community review of trust and ArbCom placing themselves above it looks quite wrong from here. J bh  Talk  22:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Others likely have better memories for precedent; here's at least one instance of a similar constraint where private information was involved, in a situation not otherwise similar. The point really isn't about "the community can't be trusted"; it's that the committee has material facts available to it that the community does not. In other circumstances where there is private information relevant to an RfA - for example, in the case of prior accounts that have not been publicly linked - the community generally expects that arbcom will review it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you. If I might suggest, it could help the community - particularly us in the peanut gallery without long experience of precedent - if ArbCom were to explain such things in their motions/remedies. This will make them sound less like pronouncements from on high and will help people understand the why's and how's as well as showing some of the thought that went into it. For instance in this case in this case "For improper behavior with respect to another editor on IRC Soap is desysopped and banned. Because of the private nature of evidence we considered in this case Soap must obtain the permission of ArbCom before resubmitting to RfA if they successfully appeal their ban" Links to precedent or where you think your authority to do 'creative' sanctions would help a lot too. In most cases it is possible to provide a reasonable description of the why "improper behavior on IRC..." while giving reasonable protection to the victim. The key in both cases is "reasonable" . You are not protecting the victim of a crime (or if you are all actions should be Office Actions) and you must be careful not to victimize the 'offender' or start to look like a Star Chamber.  J bh  Talk  02:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles case modified

 * Original announcement
 * I've several times objected to decisions because they were ambiguous or otherwise unclearly worded. Thank you for giving us a clear, unambiguous decision that anyone should be able to understand easily.  Nyttend (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nyttend. I take full credit for it, comforted by the knowledge that I did not contribute a single word to it. I do understand the first part of your note--it can be really tough, and input from knowledgeable and non-hotheaded editors such as yourself is always of great help. If you have nothing better to do (you're finished with Ohio, right? everything is written up?) I would like to ask you to write up a draft for all currently open cases, at the going rate of 0¢ per word. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent job, Drmies. The clarity of this decision can clearly be attributed to your presence on the committee, somehow. 👍 Kurtis (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's the first time in recent memory that I saw something on an ArbCom page that made me smile instead of want to bang my head against the wall. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aw y'all, you make me blush. This is going to be a fun term. Yay for ArbCom! DYK that brings snacks to every secret meeting? That  plays NOTHING BUT BARRY MANILOW on the karaoke in the secret lounge? One thing though--we had a lot more fun when 's emails were still being rejected. Boo K-stick! Drmies (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My favourite are the mini quiches. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I make some pretty awesome samosas too...and when shark cat and shark pug join in, it's quite the party. ;) Keilana (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds a bit POINTY to me. WormTT(talk) 09:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I read that as Mimosas and got really excited by the idea of brunching as a committee --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  14:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "This is going to be a fun term." Famous last words! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to propose a motion: At all ArbCom functions, broadly construed, both samosas and mimosas are served. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Mimosas, hmmm? *peeks at inbox* I'll take a Scotch on the rocks, please. The WMF covers our drinks, right? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (reads thread, channels Airplane!) Looks like I picked the wrong year not to be arbitrating. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Well we are still taking volunteers to host the annual ArbCom BBQ/karaoke night, naturally you'd be invited if you were the host. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, but I am afraid that at a prior wiki event, I've already been topic-banned from singing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm just glad you all are having so much fun. Past arbitrators always seemed so dour and imperious, so it's good to see you guys have a sense of humor. Maybe, while the good times are still rolling, we can introduce some cool new traditions, like having a "think before you ban" day or a "respond to community concerns" day? Everyking (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's everyday, Everyking. But, I admit, shooting from the hip is much more fun. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms

 * Original announcement


 * Good, that aligns the remedy more closely with the locus of dispute. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Requests Case Kevin Gorman closed

 * Original announcement
 * EnWiki bureacrats can remove the sysop flag. I have done so as a local burecrat and noted that at Steward_requests/Permissions. -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

While the removal of buttons might be for the best, this case should never have been accepted. Clearly a motion would have had the same instructions for the 'crats, without the month-plus-long drama fest and dragging the guy through the mud and over the coals. I urge the committee not to do it this way in the future. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 04:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor still holds self-granted WP:EFM rights, is there a standard procedure for this? –xeno<sup style="color:#000">talk 18:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Rich Farmbrough had EFM when he was desysopped, his EFM was removed then and reinstalled two days later because the ArbCom remedy didn't say anything about EFM. Kww lost his EFM when desysopped because the remedy in his case did explicitly ask for it, there have been issues with his EFM. This remedy doesn't say anything about EFM and I can't find anything on the Evidence page either. This all as a bystander commentary, unofficial etc.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what is most reasonable is to remove it, and then if there exists an administrator who is willing to trust Kevin with the tools, that administrator can reapply ot. But as the tools were self-applied, and Kevin was now deemed to have lost access to the admin toolkit for judgment related reasons, I think the self-application needs to go as well. -- Avi (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When was it added? WP:EFM is very clear on what you need to have to be granted EFM rights as a non-admin - from looking at the voting, Kevin was desysopped in large part because of his (lack of) judgement and understanding of basic wikipedia processes, I doubt he fulfills the criteria for EFM. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was added 15 Oct 2015 . I see it has been removed by . I am in agreement with Avi above: without reference to any particular editor, self-granted EFM should be removed if administrator is removed; as it can't hold itself up by its bootstraps. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 19:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I made a proposal here. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 20:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that the clerks notify the edit filter noticeboard in the event that an edit filter manager is desysopped. This will support either the of the current proposals (automatic removal or review) linked to by Kharkiv07. Regarding Kevin specifically, I do not have a strong opinion about whether his EFM rights should be removed or not and suggest that editors who are both active edit filter managers and administrators should excercise their best judgement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside from Rich Farmbrough, when Ceradon resigned under a cloud last year, their self-granted EFM rights was also (subsequently) removed. There's no policy, but I agree with the common practice of removing self-granted EFM rights, to be re-granted by another administrator at their discretion under policy is the right thing to do. -- KTC (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the right decision. Everyking (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No suggestion of abuse of EFM rights was brought forth in this case, and it is technically possible for a non-admin to be an EFM. So to my view, whether EFM rights should be retained here is a decision of the community, and was rightly not made in the case. The decision neither prevents nor requires that EFM rights be retained by Kevin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you Seraphimblade if it were not self-granted. As it stands any Kevin can ask any admin willing to return it. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 07:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I disagreed with the removal, only that the decision didn't require it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well Reaper Eternal obviously disagrees. WP:EFM is very clear on what you need to have Edit Filter rights. "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users; when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it. Demonstrated ability that one can and will use it safely is absolutely critical. This is because widespread disruption of the entire encyclopedia can easily occur—even unintentionally—with the smallest of mistakes in changing edit filters. Therefore, demonstrated knowledge of the extension's syntax and in understanding and crafting regular expressions is absolutely essential. Bolding mine. As Kevin self-assigned this right, none of the above checks were performed. As he has been de-mopped in large part due to his judgement (and exercise thereof), how on earth does he qualify? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I self-assigned EFM because it gave me more information about an entire large wikiconference being autoblocked to the point that I had a much better guess about the cause of the block (because some of the log entries looked like EF triggered blocks, and, in an undocumented feature, EFM did allow me to see more about the block to the point that it let me figure out what was wrong and unblock the conference at the same time before the multiple checkusers IAR checkusering trying to figure it out were able to do so. Since I attend large wiki-events with regularity, although I'm unlikely to edit EF's (though I do know enough regex to edit all but the most complicated ones,) the fact that it'll let me figure out the issue faster at future events means there's valid use in me having it, although it's not like it's a critical right for me currently.  I've had EFM for months, and the only thing I've managed to do with it so far is unblock a couple hundred autoblocked people (since it made their block logs more informative - though I haven't the faintest idea why.)  Any new EF I ever write I'll certainly run by someone else before trying to use to make sure it does what I intend it to.  Since  I still hold confidential information that I've never disclosed from both being at WMF, the Wiki-PR investigation, and a few other things, I would imagine the idea of me leaking private EF's to anyone is a bit far-fetched.  Even if you look at the most recent arb case which ended in a desysop (has a full case where the only subject involved was an admin ever not ended in a desysop?,) you'll note there's no findings of fact that I made any choices that significantly disrupted Wikipedia other than generating an arbcom case, so I'm not sure why I'd start fucking with EF's disruptively now. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 21:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So the obvious question is: "Now that you can't block or unblock anybody and you don't write edit filters, why do you need EFM?" Hat collecting is not a reason.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Should we understand that User:Reaper Eternal checked all that must be checked (knowledge, abilities and confidence) and takes responsibility of whatever will be done by KG when Managing Edit Filters ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Related note, while I did remove the EFM flag based on this closure, I did leave it open to discuss further with KG if he disagreed, which he did not. Now that the wheel has come around, suppose any other admins will need to go to dispute resolution if this is to be changed again; outside User:Kevin Gorman simply asking to be unflagged? — xaosflux  Talk 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage you not to view it as wheelwarring in any significant fashion, although technically it is - but so are many permissions changes. I've seen people have rollback granted and revoked four or five times over a period of time without consulting the admin who stripped it, which, in the same way, could be viewed as wheelwarring.  In the end it's not a user right significant enough for me to be worth arguing about, let alone putting Reaper in the crosshairs of another shooting gallery case, so as I'll post on Reaper's page shortly, although I appreciate his vote of confidence and do have some legitimate use for it, if an admin has a serious issue with it, I'd much rather Reaper remove it than enter the firing range on the wrong end. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 21:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To be 100% clear: I do not consider Reaper Eternal's reversal of my action to be "wheel warring"; my statement above is meant as a warning that further actions by other without clear discussion may be considered wheeling now that there has been 1 cycle. — xaosflux  Talk 00:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam reappointed an Oversighter

 * Original announcement


 * Excellent, another OS'er. Hope to see you around IRC. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Floq, you will have to sign the updated access to private information policy. The old identification is now deprecated. Please see Access to nonpublic information policy/Noticeboard. -- Avi (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done (I think). --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. Once staff confirms, one of the stewards will flip the bit for you. -- Avi (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) disbanded

 * Original announcement
 * Many thanks to those who worked on AUSC during it's time. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As a former AUSC member (Class of '12), I commend this decision. It's been a long time coming. On a related note, the Ombudsman commission is expanding its scope to include Oversight. I assume most roles will be overtaken by this global commission at some point (a move of which I also approve). Keegan (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Was there a community discussion about this somewhere? I recall one for BASC, but not AUSC (I could easily have missed it though). I liked the idea of trying to have someone at least vaguely independent reviewing CU/OS complaints. I would like to hear from and  about their opinions on this decision. Jenks24 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that, like BASC, a previous arbcom just created AUSC on their own initiative. I don't know how the community could have even had a discussion about AUSC as everything it did was by definition completely off-wiki and protected by the privacy policy. I think this was the right move, AUSC didn't really do much of anything and never did as far as I know. I'd certainly be happy to see both of the recenty removed auditors become members of the functionaries team though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it. I was happy to serve the community and look forward to continuing to serve in other roles.  MBisanz  talk 02:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC).
 * My experience on the AUSC was that it was essentially toothless, which makes the bureaucracy pointless. Egregious violations of privacy policy were still under the purview of the Committee, all the AUSC can do is make "recommendations" which are usually already apparent. Frankly, with the size and diversity of our Oversight and CheckUser teams, we do a fairly efficient job at policing and questioning each other's actions when needed. Most of my time on the AUSC was spent telling people that, despite their personal greviences, running a CheckUser is not against the privacy policy and a violation of WP:CHECKUSER (seriously, most complaints were "A check was run on me without my consent."). The AUSC was a silly role in light of our other paths to resolution. Keegan (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this was the right move, and am more or less in line with 's and 's comments. (I have a small concern about this creating negative appearances of trouble, rather than actual trouble, going forward, but I don't believe that AUSC was optimized toward addressing those in any case, at worst this is still a step in the right direction.)  --joe deckertalk 19:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. I thought this had come out of the blue, but your responses indicate otherwise. And obviously it is hard for the general community to have a handle on this issue, considering most have never served on AUSC or had to make a request of them. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk)


 * Back when I first started editing, there was no such thing as the AUSC. Now, a new generation shall know what it is to edit a Wikipedia in which the AUSC doesn't exist. I'm sure they will notice its absence, and everyone will come to realize how enormously ineffectual it really was. Thanks, Obama. Kurtis (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * “Any complaints related to misuse of the advanced permissions CheckUser or Oversight (suppression) will henceforth be investigated by the Arbitration Committee as a whole.” No mention of the Ombudsmen Commission? Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That omission was deliberate. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot follow. What good comes from denying the existence of that body whose purpose is the very exact task? A (more or less) neutral body instead of a committee reviewing its very own colleagues. Or where is my fallacy? Is that related to the recent change of tasks of the OC? —DerHexer (Talk) 00:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To elaborate a little more on Guerillero's answer, the Arbitration Committee will follow the same procedures as the AUSC did: evaluate English Wikipedia CUOS complaints and forward to the OC if WMF policies were breached. An Arbitration Committee investigation into a complaint does not preclude the OC investigating also. We did discuss forwarding complaints to the OC after disbanding the AUSC, but the OC generally focuses on global policies and not enwiki policy as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explanation. Nevertheless, probably not the best solution to review possible abuse of colleagues (alone). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Most CU and OS actions are not performed by arbitrators, so the likelihood of a complaint needing investigation being about an arbitrator is low. In exactly the same way it is with cases involving arbitrators (or anyone else), if anyone on the committee feels they are too close to the person involved to be objective they will recuse from the discussion. The community elected people who they trust to do exactly that, so I really don't see it as an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides, they can always unrecuse in time for a vote anyway! Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note, that nothing in this motion prohibits a user from making a request for the Ombuds Commission to investigate. And the OC, unlike the AUSC, actually has some teeth. Courcelles (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say here [most of] what I said on the Functionaries mailing list:  The subcommittee was quite definitely needed at the time of its creation, because there were several seriously problematic checkusers, there was little doubt the tools were being used in ways that showed favouritism and excessive zeal, and the community itself was justifiably concerned about the practices related to CU and OS.  (As well, at that time, there had been some very problematic oversights done, back in the day when the oversight tool was far more damaging than the suppression we use today.)  In its earliest days, it was tasked with actively reviewing the CU actions of checkusers - often as a result of a specific request by the Arbitration Committee.  It did do the work of ensuring that everyone met the activity standards (minuscule as they are) and made the recommendations for removal due to inactivity.  But after about 18 months or so, it kind of ground to a halt and really was receiving no actionable requests.  The biggest challenge was that for almost every iteration of the committee, one of the community members was essentially inactive, which made it really difficult to get things done.  The early AUSC wrote the original Oversighter handbook, and the AUSC used to regularly publish "best practices" to the Functionaries mailing list following their reviews - even if they didn't find wrongdoing, they would often find suboptimal practices.  Those days are long gone; I'd say the most useful work of the AUSC was done by 2012, at which point it was no longer of particular interest to the community. I am very pleased that the Arbitration Committee has taken the bull by the horns with respect to its subcommittees, and has put them out of their misery.  They were important to create and were useful until the situation changed, and they made valuable contributions, but they were now well past their best-before dates.  It takes courage to shut down processes that are no longer meeting their objectives, especially when they're volunteer-driven, but it is also (in my opinion) the wisest thing Arbcom has done in quite a while.  Risker (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Auditing checkuser
It would be good to have some auditing going on. As it is, the Arbitration Committee, and check-users generally are totally without oversight. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC).


 * --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  19:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See my sandbox Guerillero. What happens would be classed as reactive quality checks rather than auditing, as there doesn't appear to be any systematic auditing. I wouldn't say totally without oversight as there is peer review, but that appears to be mostly reactive (although without quizzing individually every CU it would be difficult to work out how much review is going on, it would be a useful survey however). I didn't get any response from the ombudsman, but I sent them an email query in the hope a subtle query might get a response, It might be better to publicly quiz them if I want any answers.
 * Essentially AUSC was a waste of time because it neither audited properly or had any teeth if it found problems. That's if it found problems, in the case of the WMUK member it found no abuse, which may have technically been correct (Chase me had the tools, was authorised to use the tools, and there was no policy to say he shouldnt) the very circumstances should have led to a drastic change in policy due to the COI alone. (It is self-evident that if you intercept an email through your place of employment from the political desk at a national newspaper -it should not need to be spelled out that you should not use your personal access to private data in order to collaborate with a political journalist) Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AUSC was a misnomer -- it did not audit, it responded to reports of alleged misuse. Such reports can now be addressed to ArbCom. A proposal for some auditing systems to be put in place (by the OC, by ArbCom, by whatever) could be good but I only see it as tangentially related to the disbanding of AUSC. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest any half competent auditor could put together a plan in a couple of days. The problem is that it would include random sampling of CUs performed by each CU every month. I can't honestly see either Arbcom or the advanced tool users agreeing to that level of oversight. The big problem as has just been demonstrated is that what one arbcom implements, another can remove. It would need to be a community enforced oversight process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to agree, every CU action is already logged for any other CU to review. If ArbCom decided tomorrow that they wanted to audit CU usage, they could (and it might not be a bad idea, although I doubt they'd be particularly willing to add that to their workload). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But it still wouldn't really be auditing. It would be arbcom checking a group of people it effectively has complete control over, contains past and present members etc, and would have no accountability towards anyone. It would have zero oversight from anyone who didn't have an inherent obligation towards arbcom. That's not how auditing works. An auditor has to be independent and not beholden to who they are auditing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have in the past put together proposals for what auditing could be done. Currently we do not even know
 * How many checkuser actions are performed by each user
 * Which or how many are in response to:
 * SPI requests
 * WMF requests
 * On the checkuser's own cognisance (or as the policy say, fishing expeditions).
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Regarding the first point, we do have six month rolling statistics for checkuser and oversight activity at Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics. Or did you have some other count in mind? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Either I  wasn't pointed to those figures last time, or I had forgotten.  Very useful.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC).


 * That doesn't account for all possibilities. A request could be made to the arbcom and/or functionaries list or other private request. For example during my year as an arbitrator I requested an experienced checkuser perform a check related to a ban appeal, and one of the very few CU checks I did personally was requested privately off-wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is why I proposed that CU requests should be logged and each action linked to a request. It seems sensible that an audit trail exist, showing who requested the CU and why, and who carried it out. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC).


 * It is acceptable for checkusers to perform checks without filing a prior request for checkuser, so long as those checks are within policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the other functionaries, but I would have no problem whatsoever with an independent audit body reviewing actions I take as an OS, provided that any privacy and confidentiality requirements that the Foundation might have were met. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC).
 * That's incredibly unhelpful. If you disagree that auditing is a good thing, say why. If you are saying that no, AC and CU have oversight, explain the process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When I sat on the AUSC list, as an arb, community member, and observer, nearly every referral that was investigatable came from a functionary or AUSC member that has been a functionary. The majority of things that came from non-functionaries were requests for information that can not be provided such as "Who has run CUs on me?", "How many CUs have been run on me?", and "I did not consent to being CUed". Also, in my time as an auditor, the people who had the least charitable interpretation of the CU and OS policies were the functionaries themselves. (Who, contrary to popular opinion, disagree about almost everything.) -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  03:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is another related issue. CUs are known, so hiding who did what serves no purpose, it's also counter to most data protection principles regarding accountability. Second, individuals have a right to know how their private data is being used. If an editor asks "have I been CU?" There is no legitimate reason to hide that information from them. Given that any Checkuser in the UK or EU is also acting as a data handler for the WMF, the individual actually has a legal right to that information. Withholding it can be taken as a sign of misuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No requests like that have come to AUSC or us, so far as I can recall, for the last 13 months. Doug Weller  talk 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not have the right to that information because EU law does not apply to a Florida-based corporation. That sort of information has not been released in the past and is governed by the current privacy policy. I can forward you the relevant threads, Doug, if you would like them. -- Guerillero  &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You might have a point if all CU information was stored on servers based in the US, accessed by US citizens, and all correspondence regarding it was made on accounts under the WMF'S control. Since none of that is in fact true, it doesn't actually matter where the WMF is based if EU citizens are storing data on other EU citizens in their own control. Hint, email accounts and mailing lists are incredibly bad ways to conduct any business involving private data if you don't want to run afoul of various countries data laws. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes please, thanks. Doug Weller  talk 21:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Both Elen of the Roads and I are of the opinion that there are probably major breaches of the Data Protection Act going on, and we expressed as much in 2012. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC).


 * I made such a request to AUSC in May 2012, and was answered in full. A subsequent request, sent 21 May 2014, with very similar wording was denied on principle.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC).


 * I have sent a fresh request. Apologies for the somewhat generic subject line. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Received. I have requested advice from the Foundation in light of Only in death's comments. Doug Weller  talk 09:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Stewards do have access to the oversight logs (not CheckUser logs, I think they should, but that's for another debate). When I was a steward, we sometimes did "handle" questionable oversighting as best we could on other wikis (I personally never saw anything problematic on enwiki). Unfortunately, "handle" is in quotation marks, because at most we could keep emailing those oversighters and asking them to reconsider. But now the OC can handle these cases, so perhaps that is for the best. --Rschen7754 19:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Rich Farmbrough, I'm told they are still looking into this. Doug Weller  talk 17:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I'm not sure what advice the foundation could give to an open and transparent committee, who would, of course, provide me with the information I requested.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC).


 * It would of course not be of any use to you. On the other hand, if the person requesting was thinking about socking, knowledge of whether their existing IP information may be available to us as a result of a prior CU would be useful to them.  Doug Weller  talk 17:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk question
When you folks have a request or a case - is anyone welcome to provide clerking duties, even if they aren't listed as a "clerk"? Does it happen often that non-clerks remove other editors posts? Do you folks often ask anyone to remove posts? If so, why? Why not remove them yourself? — Ched : ?  09:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It should just be clerks, and at times arbs. Is there anything you're referring to in particular? NativeForeigner Talk 15:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Admittedly there was something specific which caught my attention; however, it was more that the situation aroused my curiosity than my wanting to make a point of the individual situation. (which has long since passed) Thank you for your time NF. — Ched :  ?  16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Although only clerks and arbitrators are permitted to edit the Proposed Decision page of an arbitration case, I have noticed editors occasionally editing it to correct superficial mistakes, like the misspelling of a name or correcting punctuation. This behavior is not encouraged but as long as it is a minor edit that the clerks or arbs would have gotten to eventually, it is not penalized. As far as case requests go, I think sometimes editors do remove comments but, unlike a clerk or arbitrator action, these actions can be reverted. Such edits are not requested by clerks or done on behalf of the arbitration committee though. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 20:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Appointment of Ks0stm as a full clerk

 * Original announcement