Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 48

Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS closed

 * Original announcement


 * Ugh. What a downer. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 23:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yet another ArbCom witch hunt ending with the only possible result from such hunts. One arbitrator opined on the talk page that very few of these cases end in anything but a deadminning. That's obvious when you see how this case was carefully crafted to be a witch hunt. The end result is a good editor leaving, and those who actually abused advanced permissions are let off without even being examined by ArbCom. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An arbitrator is casting unfounded aspersions and denigrating RexxS here on this page, but nothing will be done about it I can almost guarantee. Now, I can't know for sure, but I'd bet a decent sum that RexxS left because ArbCom crafted this case like they do almost all other "admincond" cases - a witch hunt. Why would any editor willfully subject themselves to a witch hunt, watch people who are worse get off without even being looked at, and then come back to edit? If any arbitrator was treated the way they have treated RexxS through this process, then I guarantee they'd be leaving the project too. I encourage any arbitrator who feels they wouldn't to spend days meticulously gathering every negative thing they've ever done - including the times it was "justified" in the larger scope of things, and then post it all without any sort of explanations for the actions. Furthermore, to fully understand the position RexxS was in, any blocks others received for antagonizing you need to be undone - because according to the arbitrators, others' behavior doesn't matter whatsoever. Finally, they must hand up their administrator bit against their will - and they won't be allowed to have it back. Until arbitrators have actually experienced one of their own witch hunts (or something substantially similar), none of you are qualified to speak as to RexxS leaving because of "power" and any arbitrator commenting as such deserves a block just like it should be blockable for any other editor to do such. Multiple arbitrators have spoken since the election about "reform" - the biggest reform necessary is stopping these witch hunts and examine everyone's behavior involved - including at a minimum whoever filed the case, but also any actions that led to the actions in the case. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't see how this is a "witch hunt". I'm having trouble understanding your reaction. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 14:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As this is about RexxS, who cared greatly about accessibility, I'm fixing MOS:LISTGAP issues on this talk page in the name thereof. The arbitrators explicitly ignored behavior by a user with advanced permissions (who filed the case) because they wanted to frame it only about RexxS - and they removed all parties to the case other than RexxS, and they ignored mitigating factors in each instance referenced in the findings, and furthermore, they called RexxS involved for acting in an administrative capacity only with respect to PR - investigating the abuse of TE permissions is an administrative function, thus does not make him involved. All in all, this case was carefully crafted from the beginning to be a witch hunt with only one possible outcome - a desysop. Had PR simply remained a party as the case filer, it's almost certain that enough evidence would've been presented and considered to prevent a desysop being necessary - but when the case is designed at its core to be one sided like this, a desysop is the only viable outcome regardless of if it's right in the grand scheme of things. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's quite true. In this case we have only one involved party; RexxS. It's quite obvious from this case that RexxS was using his admin tools against himself while involved in a dispute with himself. He also edit warred against himself while being very insulting towards himself in the process. You know, if I were edit warring against myself while casting aspersions against me, I'd block myself too! Wiktionary defines arbitration as "A process through which TWO OR MORE PARTIES(emphasis mine) use an arbitrator or arbiter in order to resolve a dispute." The very basic definition of what arbitration is supposed to be is completely lost on this committee. The committee apparently wanted a fair outcome to this trial? If there wasn't a real person who was victimized by this joke of a trial, I'd be dying of laughter, incapable of breathing due to the absurdity of it all. Instead, I am disgusted and revolted. Not that it makes a damn bit of difference, but I will remember this in the next election cycle. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some questions I posed multiple times on the PD talk page and no arbitrator ever answered: Is it acceptable for arbitrators to use "participation" (or lack thereof) in their opinion making? The finding of fact didn't pass - suggesting it shouldn't have been used in decision making by any arbs, but yet multiple of them explicitly said they voted to desysop because RexxS didn't participate (at least in part). So which is it? If it's okay to use that, then a finding needs to be passed for it. If it's not, then those arbitrators should've recused/abstained from the desysop as they obviously are unable to control their outside thoughts making it into the case. Furthermore, an arbitrator made (now struck) comments about, in a gist, "editors who leave when they're being witch hunted must've only ever been here for the power". The fact that an arbitrator thinks that - not even related to this case - much less that they choose to state that as their opinion during discussion of this case where it's obviously the opposite is... Let me just say that that comment is going to have a big part if that arbitrator runs for re-election, because that's absurd the level of bad faith that arbitrator is assuming in people. Lastly, the fact that an arbitrator pranced around on an off-wikipedia site known for harassing Wikipedia editors... wouldn't surprise me if that played in to RexxS' decision to just leave altogether. If a judge in a courtroom did this, even if it wasn't any "private information", in their local bar/pub, they'd be asked to recuse the second someone found out about it. The fact that the arbitrator is still defending their actions in going and discussing offsite in forums known for harassment of Wikipedians is just laughable to me. And note that these three questions are all examples of poor arbitrator conduct - not to even get into the fact that this case was (intentionally?) crafted as a witch hunt, as are most other admin conduct cases, and then another arbitrator (fourth one here) makes a comment somewhere along the lines of "we can't be doing anything wrong, it's just that most admin conduct cases end in a desysop" - well duh, when ArbCom's over the years have been crafting them as witch hunts, then of course the only possible result is a desysop. I find it amazing that one arbitrator is blind to the details of the crafting of cases, one finds it appropriate to assume massive amounts of bad faith about other editors (gravedancing?), one is discussing the case on a website known for harassment of Wikipedians, and yet another explicitly stated they used evidence in their decision but then voted against including that evidence (RexxS lack of participation) as a finding of fact. That's at least four examples of misconduct and/or poor case management - and there's been no response yet as to why or what's being done about it. So yeah, User:Hammersoft, there's a lot here to remember the next election cycle - maybe the community will, now that we can see these examples of misconduct and/or (intentional?) crafting of cases to be witch hunts then being all "insert surprised pikachu meme here" when they end like all witch hunts do... maybe the community will remember this. I know I'm keeping track and intend to bring this up if any of the four arbitrators I've called out here run when their terms are up - because only one of them tried to explain any of this and they basically said "we gave reasons before" - that doesn't mean those reasons were or are right. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Berchanhimez: I almost did answer in your section, but thought it would largely duplicate my response in Ched's section. My apologies. To summarize: I didn't see RexxS's lack of participation as a bad thing in and of itself, or a strike against him. But input from him would have been the most effective evidence in his defense, and might have allowed some third option besides desysopping or nothing. Now, I'm not ignorant as to why one would be less than enthusiastic to participate in a case, and others have noted that speaking in one's defense can backfire too, but here, I only think it could have helped mitigate. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:BDD - Other arbitrators went farther than you, with multiple strongly hinting (if not outright saying) that the lack of response factored into their decision making. Arbitration remedies are supposed to be based on the findings of fact - and if a finding of fact is being considered by multiple arbitrators, including yourself by your own admission (saying that anything he said likely would've mitigated) indirectly, then it needs to be mentioned so. I think part of the reason is that nobody on ArbCom wanted to answer the burning question - is participation in arbitration beyond an initial response required by ADMINCOND? I think nobody wanted to answer because no, it's not - and thus arbitrators that openly admit to their votes being influenced by this "didn't participate" fact are doing so outside of their remit as arbitrators - who are supposed to follow policy and evidence, and not supervote their own opinions on top of things. I'm not sure that would change the end result (requiring arbs that clearly used "didn't participate" to vote yes on the finding of fact thereof), but it is an odd occurrence that's occurred where ArbCom allowed a remedy to pass by the hair of its teeth when multiple arbitrators (on both sides, but more on supporting) based their vote in (decently sized) part on something that there is no principle or finding addressing. Two ways to fix this - both motions - either add a finding of fact (even if it's mentioned as an extraordinary one) that addresses the lack of participation, or move to "clarify" the vote to desysop to make clear that the vote was at least partially based on a lack of participation. While I doubt anything's going to be done about these witch hunts (an arbitrator themselves showed that these cases are virtually always witch hunts), the least you can do is be honest with others and bluntly tell them that you not participating can and will be used against you - if not by all arbitrators, by at least enough of them to make it unfair and arbitrary. Note that this is only one of the problems with this case - while you did answer somewhat in another section this part of it, there are multiple other issues here that need addressed. It would be prudent, in my opinion, to initiate a community consultation/survey to attempt to find out why ADMINCOND cases almost always end up one-sided against the admin and almost always end with desysop. It may be found that ArbCom simply isn't accepting enough of them before they reach the desysop point... but I suspect just based on what I saw in a couple I reviewed that it'll actually be found that ArbCom, for whatever reason(s), is unintentionally crafting such cases in such a way that there is no other outcome possible - by excluding others' conduct which is always relevant and by allowing people to request a case based on flat out misleading information, then they never have to participate more because they are no longer a party. To put it bluntly, anyone wondering why administrators leave after ADMINCOND cases should realize that if this is how "uninvolved" people feel about the result of this, how must the party feel when treated like this? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While I obviously don't agree with your characterization of "witch hunt", I fervently agree it would be constructive to have one or more agreed-upon sanctions that can be applied to administrators (by the community writ large or ArbCom) short of desysopping. Many of us are of the opinion that a suite of restrictions upon the use of admin tools ipso facto shows a lack of community trust... but if the community told us otherwise, I, for one, would be more than happy to have that available.
 * Past experiences shape our perspectives, of course, but it would be best to explore these options with clear eyes in order to find something that will work in the longer term—it should not be round II of this case, or any other case for that matter. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Moneytrees and Berchanhimez, I'm afraid. Hopefully someday we can look back at this as a blip in the history of a long-time respected editor still with us, and not the moment someone was driven away. Vaticidalprophet 00:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Disappointing that RexxS got desysopped, but not surprising. Also, I would appreciate it if  would tell us how they would have voted on the Desysop if the case hadn't closed before they voted, if they don't mind. I hope he runs in another RFA in the future to get adminship back once he can slightly reform the  behavior that led to his Desysop. I think it's interesting that there's no time limit on when he can have another RFA, but it probably wouldn't be the best idea this very moment. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well in this matter, even if I had voted, it would not have changed the outcome. You will note that I voted on almost all other items in the case, but was torn on the matter of a desysop. I chose not to vote. I do not like the idea that ADMINCOND cases are forgone desysopping conversations.
 * I too hope to see Rexx continue as a productive contributor, and perhaps even RfA again in some years. I understand if they wish to take a break too; this was no doubt a stressful process and I am striving for ways to reduce that drama. If they wish to leave, that is their business; though I must say I am not impressed by ex-admins who leave the project. To me, that shows that they were there more for the power than our mission, among other failings. I don't think its our business to say when someone can or can't RfA, he could run again tomorrow if he wanted, and the community could rebuke ArbCom if it so felt. But that seems unlikely, and I imagine Rexx might wait some time. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think saying that retirement shows that they were there more for the power than our mission is a really unfair way to characterize things. As much as we claim adminship is not a big deal, in a basic social sense, it's a huge deal. Passing RfA shows that you have the respect of one's peers. Having that status forcibly taken from you (deserved or not, I'm not getting into the merits of this or any other de-adminship) feels like a big loss of social standing, even if one still has friends and supporters here. Most people can't help feeling upset and embarrassed when they lose standing, so it's no wonder many choose to retire after being de-sysopped - it has everything to do with a perfectly natural feeling of loss, not that they only care about power. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see my comment has been not helpful, and have struck it. I am always sad to see contributors go, and have no idea if Rexx will stay or go, and hope that he sticks around. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I do not at all think Rexx was just here for the power, I think Rexx is a well intentioned and positive contributor. I was speaking in an abstract capacity and did not choose my words very carefully, and frankly my words were not relevant to the question at hand. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And that is how I read it, ; i.e., in the abstract. I didn't see it as you having ill-intent but nowadays, it is difficult to express oneself from keyboard to computer screen without the potential of one's intent being misinterpreted - and I'm speaking from experience. It all boils down to perspective, and perhaps the level of tolerance one is willing to extend when interpreting intent. I think it may have something to do with the absence of facial expression and body language vs hard, cold text on a computer screen. Add to that, the fact that we are communicating on a global scale with a vast array of people who have different thought processes. You provided a courteous response, struck the text - it's bygones.Thumbs_up_icon.svg  Atsme 💬 📧 02:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I too would like to see RexxS back at RFA at some point, but for everyone's sake I hope that before he does do, he takes the feedback about his behaviour onboard and leaves it sufficiently length of time to demonstrate that he has done so. Since 2015 only 3 editors desysopped by arbcom have stood for RFA, not one of them did this and not one of them passed (in one case the behaviour was essentially unchanged; in another it was debatable whether the behaviour had changed and there was different behaviour that would also have sunk a first RFA; in the third there was insufficient time between the desysop and RFA to know whether behaviour had changed or not). Especially given how close his first RFA was, I would bet a significant amount on an immediate re-RFA being unsuccessful, and that would be a bad thing for Rexx and, at best, of absolutely no benefit to the community whatsoever. Thryduulf (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Disappointing. Can't really criticise the Arbs, but I've never been a fan of retaliatory ArbCom filings leading to others diff-digging and producing the somewhat ramshackle evidence they had to work with. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's a nicely nuanced position, and I agree. Any admin who does anything at all, will make mistakes, marginal calls, and accumulate haters. I think there should at least be some kind of temporary suspension or three-strikes rule. But he did fuck up. And I say that as one who has fucked up plenty in my time as well. It's a shame all round: I like RexxS well enough, he has a sense of humour and is a decent person.
 * We really should be returning to the "no big deal" philosophy, or unbundling some rights. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is quite unfortunate, but reading the decision, I am convinced the Bureaucrats set him up two years ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are seriously suggesting that a group of 17 bureaucrats would be able to know that two years after a crat chat that the admin in question would be desysoped, and intentionally promoted them knowing this would be the case, then I need to start buying lotto tickets or something because that's some impressive foresight. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I am seriously suggesting what? I am not suggesting anything, I am flat out saying, I think that bare half-supported decision and the issues raised then, set him up for this type of fall. (see also,  failure of WP:CONSENSUS) --Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to check your language. "Set him up" means a deliberate action was taken to create conditions which would result in their being desysopped down the road, which is highly unlikely, since if the 'crats didn't want him as an admin, all they had to do was not promote him. If you mean instead that the divided 'crat chat just happened to create the conditions that led to the desysop, that's a more defensible statement.  whether it's true or not is impossible to know, and not very useful at that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Setting up to fail can be intentional or unintentional -- e.g., "in hindsight, I was setting myself up to fail" is a perfectly sensible thing to say, and does not imply intentionality. (I mean, I understand the initial misunderstanding, but after it was clarified?) --JBL (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Obviously Alan doesn't mean the Crats maliciously plotted a conspiracy to approve his RfA knowing that he would be desysopped, that doesn't even make sense. "Set him up to fail by giving him a break" was clearly the intended meaning. As I said in the case request, I think the crats got it right, but I also completely agree with the argument that the decision played a part in his eventual desysop. If he didn't pass, he would have had to face a hard consequence for his behavior, and make adjustments prior to gaining the tools. Technically he passed below the bare minimum threshold set by the community and the crats passed him anyway. This is on the crats, and I'm sure they will learn from it. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is not that they intended the end. Set up does not require such intent -- it's that the community was divided, and the crats were divided. That was the predicate set up and the wisdom of policy then is to check the motion, go back, and build consensus by addressing concerns in order to move forward -- in RfA process, in the 2nd consensus gathering, or the 3rd, or 4th.  Listening for consensus building still remains useful. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll add, not only was the community and crat division itself evident, but in the middle of that chat, RexxS expressed his own doubts that it was the best way forward - again, listening is more than useful. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think "set him up" is completely unfair. RexxS is not a 5 year old. We don't let 5 year olds be admins. They saw all the comments and concerns from others. They saw the public comments from bureaucrats. At any stage, even after the final decision, they had the choice to reject being made admin if they didn't feel they could adequately address the concerns people had raised going forward. The bureaucrats recognised things were borderline and decided after discussion to give RexxS the chance. RexxS failed to take that chance. That's almost entirely on them. They are the ones who despite being given almost 2 years, failed to improve their behaviour. They are the ones who failed, despite surely knowing themselves better than anyone else, and despite plenty of people explaining to them what was expected, to recognise that they weren't going to be able to bring themselves up to the standards we require from admins. (I'm obviously AGFing this is what happened rather than RexxS recognising they couldn't but hoping they could escape without it.) RexxS is not a newbie. They are not someone who should have need handholding. As I said, I'm sure they're not a kid. We need to stop blaming others because some highly experience editor failed, despite us giving them lots of opportunities and chances. Maybe there are some minor things we could have done better, but we don't have the time and resources to mollycoddle each editor especially not admin candidates. At some level, they need to decide whether they can make it as an admin. It wouldn't work anyway. There are always going to be borderline cases and there always needs to be a decision. Either we are very strict and seriously limit the number of admins, or we relax and risk appointing editors who aren't suited for adminship. From what I've seen our borderline at the moment probably isn't that bad. Maybe this decision means the borderline should be slightly tougher, maybe not. I trust bureaucrats to make that decision based on all they've seen and don't think they are setting people up whatever they decide. Just like with any WP:ROPE like decision, some admins at the borderline will make it, some won't. Those who aren't made it aren't being "set up". Note that I have no personal animosity towards RexxS. I've barely read the case. I did see some concerns on the boards about RexxS at times, and did partly agree with these but I don't really have much of an opinion either way. I'm willing to trust arbcom here, since most of the time their decisions have been reasonable and I haven't see anything in this discussion to suggest to me this one wasn't. Suggestions others set up RexxS because they were given a chance, but RexxS failed to take it is just wrong. Also this isn't a comment on any other aspect of RexxS's editing. RexxS may very well be a brilliant editor in general and a great asset to this project. They just aren't currently suited to be an admin, and it's very unfortunate they never recognised this but that is on them. (The problems which lead to the de-adming aren't ideal for a regular editor either, so improvement would be great, but it's entirely reasonable as I indicated below, it's not sufficient for a long term block.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. When I wrote the above reply, I wasn't aware that RexxS didn't actually meet the minimum threshold. This pushes me much more towards the side that bureaucrats made a mistake, but I'm still strongly opposed to the idea they set RexxS up. Rexxs is the only one who set themselves up. Again, people need to take personal responsibility for the stuff they do here. The primary problem when we too readily give rope to people and they fail is not the negative consequence for the person who took the rope and failed, it's for the community dealing with it while they're failing. I.E. yes maybe the bureaucrats made a serious boo-boo, but the main cost by far was for us having to deal with this rather than because maybe if things had been different and RexxS had been rejected they would have eventually improved. They always had that choice and were provided with the information they need to make it. Nil Einne (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the cost is to RexxS and the cost is to us, they are not mutually exclusive. But what makes you think, I am giving RexxS a pass on his behavior or his responsibility, whatever it was? Not once have I criticized having him pay his part of the cost (but him paying is not the only cost, nor is it that hermetically sealed, him paying is evidently painful for (some) others in the community, too). It remains the Crats set him up, in the face of an evident divide in the community and in the Crats.  There is nothing unfair about recognizing that.  Especially in a project that holds to consensus, because we believe optimal outcomes tend to arise from working to consensus (but that involves work). We all know there was absolutely no requirement that RexxS be put in (or put up to) the position the Crats put him in, right that minute. To use your rope trope, if you are going to spin rope and hand it to someone and they exact a cost on the rest of us with that rope, that rope dealing is on you - take responsibility (and that's assuming it's your job to spin rope at all for handing out responsibilities that exact costs on others). Unless one holds that the Crats are perfect, there is certainly no reason not to look askance at what happened there.  Crats, it is hoped, continue to learn, as we all must in doing our chosen work, here.   -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Break 1

 * This is just an unpleasant misfortune all around. I'm not the biggest civility wonk of all time but it was clear to me at the RfA that enough people had legitimate concerns over it that the RfA should not have succeeded; I think those who opposed over civility and had their concerns contemptuously flicked aside in the crat chat might feel a bit vindicated now but that's not a noble sentiment really. Although I agree with Black Kite that these proceedings often just turn into a shopping list of gripes and grumbles, and I'm not really too concerned about many of the peccadillos presented, ultimately you can't go around deleting peoples' posts and accusing them of deliberately persecuting the vision impaired just because they didn't indent their posts "properly" and expect to hold advanced permission here. That was just unbelievably nasty and the event that convinced me RexxS isn't fit to wield the mop. Reyk YO! 07:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mind boggling: To decide that an admin leaves Wikipedia because power means more than the community and the work, presupposes that the arbs are always right in their determination. Are they? Really? Or are the arbs making the best determination possible given who they are and the information they have? Is that information always completely accurate or sometimes incorrect, slanted or false? The idea that 10 or so people on the project have always determined "the truth" is frightening and speaks to a level of arrogance that should be leveled. But in fact, I don't think that's what arbs believe. I think they know they are human, capable of errors in judgement, and if they aren't should they be part of a collaborative community-driven project where supposedly everyone is human. If they are human, capable of mistakes allow that editors possibly falsely accused, judged and punished in this not so, non-punitive situation feel that the highest order in the land has not served them fairly and so perhaps they have a right to leave. Arbs selected, although this will never happen, should be those who have suffered through an arbitration and been sanctioned, perhaps wrongly. I think insights into what happens to someone accused in an arbitration would be quite different than what we see now. Arbs get it wrong. I respect those arbs I've seen in the past who know and have admitted to this fact. Littleolive oil (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You must say you're not impressed by ex-admins who leave the project because it shows they were here more for the power than our mission? Why must you? Do you feel an urge to disgrace yourself? Because that's a despicable thing to say in the context of desysoping RexxS. RexxS was an asset to Wikipedia for 11 years before he requested adminship two years ago, and you suggest his departure after this humiliation shows he was here for the hat-collecting? I think your election to ArbCom (a mere seven months after becoming an admin, if we're going to talk about being here for the power) has gone to your head. Among other failings, e.g. of imagination. You should be ashamed. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC).
 * , editing Wikipedia is a volunteer activity, whether as an admin or not. The assumption that an editor is interested in everything about Wikipedia is a false premise. I have zero interest in DYK or ITN or copyright investigations. If you kick an editor out of their niche activity you don't get to dictate that the next item on their list of interests should also be Wiki-based rather than trying out for a cheerleader spot at the Kansas City Chiefs, launching their own brand of ice-cream, installing solar panels on their roof, or any one of a million options. Assuming they were on a power-trip, just because the niche from which you ejected them made use of the mop, is (imho) bad faith. Cabayi (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm gladdened to see has struck the comment. Cabayi (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think some of the reactions to Eek's comment are rather ironic considering the reason we're here. My interpretation is that it was an abstract attempt to discourage such behavior, not associate it to anyone in particular. I saw no ill-intent in his comment, and certainly no reason for him to feel shamed or embarrassed over it. I commend him for striking it in an effort to appease those who disapproved. What we tend to learn with age and experience is how important it is to proofread and measure each word before clicking publish, especially in controversial areas where emotions run high. No one is perfect, and when there's a lot on our plate, we may not be thinking that our words will be looked at under a compound microscope magnified to the umpteenth degree. And that applies across the board to all editors, admins and arbs. I choose to believe that RexxS will take a wikibreak to sort things out, and will eventually return knowing how much he was missed by so many of us. Not having the tools doesn't amount to a hill of beans to most of us on the front line, so let's not make it seem like more than what it is; he didn't lose a crown or fall off a pedestal. He is still one of us, and I for one, will celebrate his return.  Atsme 💬 📧 04:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bishonen here - I think this one comment is more than enough to suggest that this was a horribly crafted case (a witch hunt) from the beginning, and that at least one arbitrator wasn't voting in good faith as they were making wildly incorrect assumptions about others (and are now casting aspersions against the same). That an arbitrator felt it would be acceptable to say this after a case like this is absolutely absurd - and should end with their resignation as that's an attitude completely unfit to be an arbitrator. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RexxS, at his RFA wrote:
 * Just as I think adminship is no big deal, I don't think lack of adminship is a big deal either. If the community decide to trust me with the tools, that's fine; if the community doesn't, that's fine as well. I certainly won't be planning to "try again another day" (although I will take on board all of the criticisms, constructive or not). --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * He repeated those words, five days later, and an hour before he got the badge. Today, RexxS has eight user rights (I have five, FWIW). RexxS wasn't blocked, or banned or had his article editing restricted in any way. Nobody demanded that he should be, or that Wikipedia would be better of without him. Quite the opposite, in fact. None of his friends turned their back on him. The arbs have a difficult job and imo made the right decision. Experience of "retirement" and RexxS's own words at the RFA would suggest he has not left the project, despite how he may be feeling about it right now. A break to contemplate things and get over any ego bruising is normal. Blaming the arbs for his "loss" is not only premature, but a dangerous path. Are all arbs to worry that desysopping an admin is effectively a siteban and leads to the person leaving the project, for which they will be blamed? No. It is an extra right, and in RexxS's very own words, should be no big deal to not have it. -- Colin°Talk 11:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A single, bad decision by a 'crat. set this entire thing into play. A bad and wholly avoidable decision. That 'crat is now on the committee. The community can hardly complain - it gets what it votes for. And the preceding comment by Bishonen regarding another AC member is spot on. That said, the decision was a correct one. Just avoidable and almost predictable. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, and that is very little, I feel this was the correct decision by the Committee based on the evidence presented; there appeared to be a distinct pattern of "conduct unbecoming". I do however agree entirely with Premeditated Chaos that former admins who leave the project are probably not doing so because they've lost their power, but because being the subject of an ArbCom case and having your behaviour examined in minute detail is almost certainly exhaustingly uncomfortable on its own, to say nothing of being found wanting at the end of it. That is not a criticism of the Arbitration procedure, merely a statement of fact (although I am pleased to see that some steps are being taken to reduce the stress). ƒirefly  ( t · c ) 14:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that an Arbitrator would say that leaving the project "shows that they were there more for the power than our mission, among other failings." I think I agree with all the comments above., at the very least you should recuse from any case where the accused party is no longer editing, and I'll go further and ask you to retract your comment and apologise. Doug Weller  talk 15:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This may be a good time to remind ourselves that Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and people are free to leave at any time, for any reason, without any explanation. Deciding that the stress of a pending ArbCom case is not worth the time or energy (or pay!) is a perfectly understandable reaction, and not one to which we should be ascribing any particular motives or character flaws. – bradv  🍁  15:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah? Then pray tell, why did we have this introduced in the PD? Why did it come so close to passing? But for vote changes, it would have passed. It should never have made it to the PD in the first place. Deeply chilling attempt by ArbCom in a volunteer organization. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've only interacted with RexxS once over the many years that we've been active on here and have not followed this case -- and am not commenting on the merits (or lack thereof) of it -- but to see a sitting arbitrator make a comment (now struck) as above is sufficient reason for me to think that this project is a waste of my time and I should try to shake off this "drug addiction" sooner rather than later. If anyone wanted to be the subject of moral judgement they'd go to a religious house of their choice, they should not have to spend their time and effort on a voluntary project for that. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a very difficult issue that both ArbCom and the community will have to come to terms with, and it has no easy answers. In theory, accepting a case that ends in desysopping should lead to the desysopped admin staying on as a regular editor who is valued by the community for things other than the use of the admin privileges. Yeah, right. We know from it happening over and over and over again that we end up losing users entirely. And that's not what the Committee intended. I expect to get answers along the lines of "no, we wish it did not end up that way, and we really hope that RexxS will come back, but we cannot just decline case requests for fear that the user will retire, because that will allow accused users in the future to effectively blackmail the process." Maybe that's true, but I find it unsatisfactory. We cannot wish away what is empirical fact, observed with overwhelming frequency. We know that accepting an admin conduct case means the same thing as a self-imposed site ban. We cannot pretend otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case, ArbCom experimented with a variety of process changes in how the case was carried out. I think that the more active monitoring of case pages was a success, that can be built upon. In particular, I want to thank and  (as well as  who was recused but who has been very active in responding to community comments elsewhere) for being so active and helpful in replying on case pages. I also notice a divide in this regard between Arbs who were just elected last year, and those who have been on the Committee for many years. In fact, some veteran Arbs mostly just posted comments reacting defensively to criticism of the Committee, which I found disappointing.
 * I think it was a mistake to close the Workshop the same time as the Evidence. I also think that Analysis of Evidence should extend a while after the Evidence itself closes. Whether to have Analysis of Evidence on the Evidence page or the Workshop page is a tough call, but it's worth remembering that for a very long time having it on the Workshop page meant that participating editors tended not to find it and utilize it. But in any case, evidence often needs to be analyzed, even when the evidence is posted at the last minute before the deadline.
 * Because multiple things were changed at the same time, I'd advise caution in determining whether things like the Workshop should or should not be eliminated based on just this one case. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * These are good points. I haven't followed this case as closely as I've followed some others, but from what I've seen I certainly agree regarding closing the analysis at the same time as the evidence. Closing the workshop at the same time as the analysis of evidence, but later than the evidence, would imo be preferable to closing them all together. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing the workshop at the same time as the evidence was a bad, bad move. I also feel the construct of forbidding parties to the case from responding to evidence after the evidence closes is abusive. People can submit evidence right up to the very end of the evidence phase, and the named parties have no opportunity to respond. Not that RexxS participated in this latest sham of a trial, but evidence on this case was coming in on the last day of the trial. Parties have no opportunity to defend themselves. This can hardly lead to a fair conclusion. If in the real world a defendant was not legally able to defend themselves against accusations, we would consider such legal systems abusive. But here on Wikipedia, it's fair and just. Unreal. Absolutely unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I'm afraid I'm not really clear on what specific post you are referring to. I don't recall any such post about you related to this case. I just looked through my recent posts on that thread over there and I still don't see it. Lourdes, I'm sorry if that made you feel uncomfortable, such was not my intention. As you saw, someone asked who you were, which I frankly thought was a dumb question, I don't think they were genuinely asking who you are in real life, so my response deliberately was not an actual answer to their question, and led to a number of people commenting on how much they enjoy your work instead of engaging on whatever unstated point that person was trying to make. I do that sometimes over there when I think a thread is going somewhere stupid, try to just throw it off-topic, which happens a lot there. But I will leave your real life career out of it should the subject come up again. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , please consider posting less about a case, when the case is in progress, at the Wikipediocracy forums. I'm all in favor of transparency, but that means transparency here, not there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The short answer would be that I completely disagree with you. I can comment wherever I choose. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I will elaborate on why I feel that way. Although ArbCom is obviously not a court of law, there are reasons why the appearance of impartiality matters here as well. For example, I posted a suggestion on the Workshop talk page, and you posted at Wikipediocracy that you thought my suggestion was, essentially, ridiculous. It's OK if you and other Arbs reject my suggestion; that's fine and I understand that. But posting about it externally, but where people here are still going to see it if we look there, is an unbecoming way to go about it. And this goes beyond just one thing that I suggested. When an ArbCom case is in progress, it's just not a good look for Arbs who are actively judging the case to be posting a running commentary about it while the decisions are being made. I'm not disputing that you can comment wherever you choose, but I'm saying that you should choose otherwise. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Trypto is right. You have been commenting about me also on external forums during this case. I am not mentioning negative or positive, but to deliberately bring my RL background into external forum discussions when the case is going on, is uncalled for and not at all required – because you are an arbitrator deciding on a case. As an Arbitrator, please push yourself to a higher standard. You want to comment on external forums during a case, please leave my real life and the case out of the discussion. Lourdes 01:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, I'd rather not hunt it down and post a link to it, but although you never mentioned me by username, you commented in a forum discussion about the desysop proposal that what I posted about here was something that you felt very negatively about. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking back at WPO, I see that a reliable source has pointed you to it there, and reminded me that you called what I wrote "harebrained". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I commented on your policy proposal. On the proposal itself,as you proposed it, well outside of arbitration space. I'm perfectly comfortable saying the same thing here too, it was a terrible idea that made no sense. the goalposts have moved pretty quickly if now I can't even do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, I realize that people are directing a lot of negativity at you at various places, and that it's no fun. But let's take a factual look at goalposts. I said, just above, and you posted at Wikipediocracy that you thought my suggestion was, essentially, ridiculous. It's OK if you and other Arbs reject my suggestion; that's fine and I understand that. So I've made it very clear that I understand that you said it about the proposal, and not about me personally, and that I have no problem with you or anyone else disagreeing emphatically with the proposal. So don't move the goalposts as to what I actually said. But I had linked to the discussion, made outside of arbitration space, from the Workshop talk page. I had made it part of the discussion about the case, on a case page. And you could have, entirely appropriately, responded negatively about it on the Workshop talk page. But instead, you took a shot at it at an external website, while maintaining an appearance of being silent about it on-wiki. It seems to me that you would be better served by acknowledging how that was sub-optimal and saying that you will try to do better in the future. Instead, you are doubling down. Which is what you held against RexxS when you voted to desysop him. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to make such accusations, it may behoove you to get your facts straight. WO has timestamps on posts, just like we do here, and it's patently obvious I made that comment three days before you posted about it on the workshop talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And three days after I first referenced it on the Evidence talk page. But as I said, you took a shot at it at an external website, while maintaining an appearance of being silent about it on-wiki. There was a proper way to communicate about it as a member of the Committee. And this is just one of many comments that you made at WPO during the case, and you undeniably kept up a running commentary about the case while the case was ongoing. And throughout your replies to me here, there has not been one hint of taking constructive advice. You are replying to me in full WP:BATTLEGROUND mode. Quoting from the PD page, I think Rexxs is a great Wikipedian with a lot to offer this project, and I do hope he returns to editing, but his temper sometimes gets the better of him in a manner we don't like to see from an administrator. That's what you said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, the stuff about talking about cases is one thing, but this nonsense about your proposal is getting absurd. I'm not going to take this on board as constructive criticism because it isn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it makes a useful contrast to look at each comment that I have made here – what I actually said – from the start (please consider posting less about a case, when the case is in progress, at the Wikipediocracy forums. I'm all in favor of transparency, but that means transparency here, not there) until now, alongside each of your respective responses to me. It's not like I came here demanding anyone's head on a stake or anything. But, each and every time, defensive, snarling responses as if this were an unrelenting death match. This isn't about whether there was something written down in policy that wasn't followed to the letter. It's about common sense, doing the right thing, and how ArbCom can put its best foot forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion is continued here. Lourdes 02:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not impressed by ex-admins who leave the project. To me, that shows that they were there more for the power than our mission, among other failings: was an extremely ill-considered thing to say, showing a complete lack of human understanding. So thanks for striking the second sentence. You should consider also striking the first. Paul August &#9742; 18:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Now struck, thanks. Paul August &#9742; 18:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish RexxS's friends had been this keen to remark on "extremely ill-considered" comments posted by RexxS over the years. Plenty examples on both this case and the medical case of language and bad-faith attitude I don't wish to see coming from any editor, let alone an admin. RexxS might have learned to moderate things, if his friends has had a wee word with him about it from time to time, and ask him to strike some things like we see here, or apologise. When RexxS edit warred, showed persistent hostility to those he disagreed with, or threatened or engaged in the use of his administrator tools while INVOLVED, those actions hurt other editors, real people, who are what Wikipedia is just as much as article content. The arbs have to consider those people too. -- Colin°Talk 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the last few desysops for cause there are a couple of patterns emerging, and neither looks positive. I'd like to remind the Arbs that there is more than one tool available to them. As for the geography of these decisions, this means that the last four desysops for cause have come from one Atlantic Archipeligo.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously in the end, I didn't support desysop. But how many tools in ArbCom's toolbox? There's some form of reminder/warning/admonishment sure but beyond that we run into Beeblebrox's very legitimate point that restrictions is an uneasy fit with our admin policy. Personally I'm open to other ideas, and if there had been a set of restrictions that made sense given these facts I'd have likely proposed them, but I somewhat question just how many tools we actually have available to us because I count two (with 1 of them having a few different sizes we can use depending on the circumstances). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The tool you could have used is a pre-arbitration one. The editor said he'd take criticism on board when NY Brad talked to him. Give it a month after pre-arbitration discussion and see what happens. The next arbitration if there is one will be a  whole lot easier and straightforward. I doubt there would have been a need for one in this case. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not my experience with how Wikipedia or ArbCom works. My experience is that once an action is declined after major discussion there is little appetite to revisit in the medium term. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The simple solution if you were concerned the case wouldn't be accepted in the "medium term" if you declined it would have been to accept the case, and suspend it by motion - or even suspend it by motion as a "final decision", basically resulting in a "probation" period where ArbCom could reopen the case if behavior worsens or doesn't begin to improve. But that would've required actually admitting that RexxS' behavior doesn't happen in a vacuum and when considered in the circumstances much of it doesn't seem near as bad as the findings seem to make it sound. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary for this reply said Let's be clear I explicitly said I think there are at least two options. And I voted not to desysop so clearly I think "Accept and don't desysop" is an option. I think if we had suspended a case people would have criticized us for hanging a sword over Rexx's head and it wouldn't have been seen as some act of justice at all. But I could be wrong. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that people from different parts of the world have different standards. Canadians for example are very self deprecating and laugh at themselves all the time, Americans I found when I moved here do not laugh at themselves readily or at all. Australians don't tolerate any kind uppity, and Brits have language and mannerisms that Americans might find abrasive but which are appropriate there. I would never call anyone an ass in the US but my son-in-law who is from the northern UK uses it what our meaning anything by it. If you're being daft that means very little and is no great insult but in the US someone could take offense. In addition, I doubt very much if most arbs or even admins have dealt with highly contentious articles and if not its hard too understand the frustration that one can feel there. This is such a waste, such a loss. If Rexx returns I would be very, very surprised. . I worked on some of the articles Rexx was working on and was ready to tear my hair out with the obstruction and convolutions. I had the luxury of walking away because I knew someone better than me would stay the course. And frankly, the words "Rexx's friends" I getting really old. It implies that these people are incapable of neutrality, and that those who voted to implicate Rexx are neutral which is hog wash. If I feel I cannot be impartial in an arbitration in my own mind, I don't talk part. One recent controversial arbitration comes to mind. As well, arbitrations are stressful, time sinks and I don't like to take part unless I have a very good reason to. I could take some very well respected admins and string together a series of diffs and the result would be someone who looked just like Rexx did in this arbitration. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * there's no culture difference between RexxS and me and I'm as happy to describe things as bullshit or bollocks as the next Brit. I didn't misunderstand his open and explicit hatred. When he said he assumed bad faith about me, and about other editors he disagreed with, I didn't misunderstand his British humour. The lack of neutrality displayed here is not an implication, it is a hard fact, and a bit embarrassing to watch. That RexxS is not editing has added some chilli pepper to the argument about the arb decision, but might seem a bit silly in a few weeks time. If you regard RexxS as a friend who you want to see editing again, you'd emphasise the "no big deal" aspect of this rather than continue with the amateur dramatics and claims about arb bias. -- Colin°Talk 22:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I've been in discussions where you and Rexx were both present, I'd say this is a case of pot and kettle. My comments about culture were a general response about culture to another editor's comments. Your comment here is so vitriolic and yet you claim to be innocent in all of this. I don't and haven't claimed arb bias, Colin, and I don't believe they are biased, in fact or at least I hope not. I dislike others extrapolating from what I've said. I don't believe the system works and I have written about this in many formats over many years. I have also said multiple times during this arbitration that I believe the abs are doing the best they can and are not to blame because a system doesn't work. Any embarrassment is yours. If I and others don't speak up the system won't change. This is the second long term editor who has left Wikipedia in few years. I have hopes that we can all do better. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To make a point: I wrote | this four years ago. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Littleolive oil given that sandbox you might be interested in participating in this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw the late in that discussion, and it made me miss them. (Sorry to go off-topic.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but Colin isn't an admin. It's entirely reasonable our conduct standards are higher and conduct which a non admin can get away with is not something we'll allow from an admin. They'll be told to stop, and if they don't be de-sysoped. Nil Einne (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've struck that last clause as the first half wasn't de-escalating things, which is what is needed. The second half, I'm responding to "that those who voted to implicate Rexx are neutral which is hog wash" comment. The only people who vote in an arbcom are the arbs. Perhaps you meant those participants who posted evidence or proposed sanctions. -- Colin°Talk 09:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly surprised by the outcome of this case, nor particularly bothered - RexxS is an absolutely stellar content editor, and you do not need the admin toolset to be an excellent content editor. Arbcom desysops are not permanent. If the community seriously believes that RexxS should remain an administrator, the community has tools for that - there is no reason that a group of editors could not take RexxS right back to RfA; call it a reconfirmation, or something. I would support the filing of that RfA (but I have no idea how I'd !vote). I do know that if I were in RexxS' position, and there was a history of concern about my behaviour that the Arbs decided to take the tremendlously unpopular decision of desysopping me, I would maybe attempt some public, on-wiki introspection about perhaps why there's a history of concern about my behaviour. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 21:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Arbcom desysops are not permanent -- if I recall correctly, the last time someone got the bit back after a for-cause was 2010. I may not recall correctly. I also dislike using precedent as rule, and I would enthusiastically cast my support for RexxS 2 (or a couple other under-a-cloud administrators emeriti). But, de facto and with a small sample size, for-cause desysoppings are now treated as a closed door. Vaticidalprophet 13:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As explained at least once in this thread already, there is simply no evidence to say that "for-cause desysoppings are now treated as a closed door." See user:Thryduulf/What happened after a desysop for more detail, but in summary, since 2015 only three editors desysopped for cause have stood for RFA and not one of them did so after demonstrating that led to the desysop were resolved (in one case the behaviour that got them desysopped was still continuing; in one it was debatably still continuing and there was also new, equally serious issues; the third was immediately after the desysop and there was no opportunity to demonstrate anything). Given that first time nominees are expected to demonstrate that they have put any past issues behind them if they want to be successful, the true figures for people who had a realistic potential to be resysopped that were actually resysopped are 0 out of 0. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The comments from arbitrators in and about this case stand strong testament to why we need a recall capability for ArbCom. Just saying you can vote them out of office in two years is woefully insufficient. Given the lack of options, we now have months if not years worth of horrible decision making to look forward to. ArbCom is victimizing real people, and laying wreck to policies the community established in part to control their behavior in the process. I am disgusted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am no stranger to being critical of ArbCom, but I actually think this tranche is one of the better ones we've had in recent years. Let's face it, it's not too many years ago since we had arbs who failed to recuse on cases including their on-and-off-wiki friends and blatantly voted to support them regardless of the evidence. It's been even fewer years since we've had arbs who basically didn't edit the encyclopedia at all, or whose ability to write a proposed decision could fit on the back of a postage stamp.  IMO, the only horrifically bad decision they've made in the last 15 months was the BHG case, and that's just my opinion. So I don't think we're doing too badly. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, you stated that the opening of this Arbcom case was a "lynching" diff. Would you like to retract that? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I would not like to retract it. I see no reason to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your sentiments about the case, but I really think that comparing it to a lynching is an extreme comparison.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, shouldn't you add yourself to recall, then? Levivich harass/hound 17:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I already did. I created User:Hammersoft/Recall one minute before my RfA went live this past December, and I added it to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall when my RfA completed as successful. If you think I should be recalled, you are welcome to use that process. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, I was looking for it on your user page. Levivich harass/hound 06:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia law that says if you don't agree with an arbitration, even strongly, you are liable to recall. That's just absurd. The arbs are not infallible; they are part of a community and are just editors with more responsibility than the rest of us. They aren't gods and not being labelled a god should be a given... and a relief. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hammersoft, By using the term "lynching" you are implicity invoking the historical practice of lynching of black people in the United States. To implicitly compare the arbcom case against RexxS to racially motivated murder and mob justice, when this was a carefully considered case, is frankly disgusting. Your total disrespect and derision of Arbcom is unbecoming of an administrator. I think you should consider your position. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lynching was also a technique used during the un policed development of the so called wild-west. It's probably best not to use it in the US these days where it has become appropriated to the horrific history of African America people in the US, but this is not its only meaning. Might be better to use something different but an attack isn't necessary is it? Littleolive oil (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the language discussing this case ("lynching", "witch-hunt", etc) fall under Godwin's law. An author's limited vocabulary prevents them accurately describing the negative aspects of an event or situation, and so they reach out for something suitably damning, even if ridiculous and offensive. It doesn't reflect at all well on them. Like Godwin's law, it effectively puts an end to hope of reasonable and intelligent debate with that party. The correct behaviour at this point is to stop digging, to strike the words, and offer a proper apology (i.e. not a "sorry if you were offended, but..." but more of a "sorry I was a complete ...." variety).  -- Colin°Talk 08:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, the answer is to take that for what it is. Arbitration is completely unfair, there is no chance that someone can defend themselves against 10, 20 or more editors piling up evidence against that person.  You want to be able to say 'it was a fair trial, the defendant had a chance to defend himself'.  No, they do not.  Closing your eyes and not wanting to see what Arbitration is akin to does not make it go away.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The "for what it is" is nothing more than "I am so extremly upset about this that I have lost the ability for coherent rational argument, and have resorted to hand gestures, raspberries and sprinkling offensive terms into whatever I write". I don't need lessons on what arbitration is like; I was a party in a two-month medical one that was unpleasant and unfair in ways I wish people would examine and learn from. I'm not quite sure what you are hoping for when you write "Arbitration is completely unfair" other than a "I stopped reading at that point" reaction. -- Colin°Talk 09:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I get your point in the first post, Colin, and I do not disagree with that that effect. And yes, I have indeed reached a point that arguing against ArbCom is futile, I can reiterate my arguments ('there is no way that you can defend yourself against 10, 20, or more editors piling up', 'anchoring results in a default state of guilty until proven differently', 'accepting a case makes the arbitrators biased' and probably more) but I know what then the standard answer is going to be.  Sugarcoating the system is not going to work either.  We all 'yell' at the system for some time (or try to use coherent arguments), and then, silently, invoke another logical fallacy to go on (and repeat ad nauseam).  (and I do hope that you do read a sentence in full, not just stopping at the first argument you dislike).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beetstra, have you actually read the case, when you claim one has to defend oneself "against 10, 20, or more editors piling up". There were 14 editors who supplied evidence and I see four of them offered evidence that was critical of RexxS. The remainder were supportive of RexxS though most stretched the dictionary definition of "evidence" somewhat, with many being just "He's a great guy, RexxS is" kinda comments. Unlike a real world trial, with circumstantial evidence, with evidence that is a statistical likelyhood at best, with evidence that is someone's vague recollection of what the guy looked like, and where what actually ocurred had no observers other than the victim/perpetrator, we have a big advantage here on Wikipedia. What RexxS wrote, and the surrounding discussion, and timeline of events, is all completely and accurately present for all to see. Sure, people can disagree as to how serious the issues are and what to do about them, but we aren't in a position of "I didn't say that" or "He didn't do that" or "You just planted that evidence". The FoF against RexxS were unanimous or nearly unanimous. That you disagree with the decision made is apparent, but is isn't entirely unreasonable. -- Colin°Talk 11:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone through it, and have been (more actively sometimes) following other cases. Believe me, whenever there is a (named) single admin party that is being brought before ArbCom, then there are no other outcomes than 'desysop' (or even worse).  I have sometimes tried to be on the defense side, but, even with 4 counter parties, there is no end to it.  Even with 2 parties against, you have a committee that accepted the case because there is a problem, and who get a 2:1 amount of evidence against rebuttal (well, rebuttal, the 'counter evidence' stage stops at the same time as the evidence stage) on a named case 'against X' is a near sure-fire way to get to the point of 'we need to do something about X'.  Even if I agree with the decision out of a case (yes, ArbCom does have it right as well), I do not see that as a fair trial.  I am sorry, when I see ArbCom cases I do not think about modern, open, judicial systems where one can expect a fair trial (even if also those make mistakes).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think a ratio of "amount of evidence" is relevant. One can't numerically offset one thing against another. There are cases "brought before ArbCom" that they don't take. If you are right, I don't know, that nearly all accepted cases go this way, then this is kind of like looking at cases once the Crown Prosecution Service has determined there's a reasonable chance of a prosecution. One would expect a reasonable rate of conviction at that point, but also as I said, real life has more uncertainties and unknowns. Comparisons with "trials" isn't really a great analogy as WAID has explained elsewhere. And beyond vague complaints about how the thing is structured, I don't see any specifics about what was "unfair". Was there vital evidence overlooked? Was there any evidence that was disputed? Did any of the arbcom members "have it in for him"? What I saw, and I'm not unbiased here, was the arbs trying desperately to find some reason to conclude that an admonishment/warning/whatever would be effective at resolving the problems, in order to allow RexxS to continue admining and editing. They appeared acutely aware of the added complication that RexxS had "retired". They fell over themselves to dismiss WP:ADMINACCT policy which clearly says "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings." (my bold). Even those arbs who did not vote for desysop respected their colleagues who did. -- Colin°Talk 14:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take your post in another order. Indeed, comparing this to a trial is indeed not a great analogy, this is far from a trial, I totally agree.  You see it as 'arbs trying desperately to find some reason to conclude that an admonishment/warning/whatever would be effective at resolving the problems', the problem there is always that you never know whether an admonishment would have been enough or not, maybe that would have worked (and here, it certainly has not been tried, where are the AN/Is and so on?).  Problem remains, if you have 2 editors coming with evidence 'they did this, they did that, they .. ', you have a hard time rebutting that all.  Volume is not necessarily a factor, but when one side overwhelms the other it certainly is - resistance is futile, there will be things that 'stick', and since the case is named after you, all we are looking for is a problem with .. you.  After all, it has been 'decided' that 'there is a problem worth looking at'.  Maybe with 2 editors giving evidence you stand a chance to explain yourself, when it become more the volumes become massive (I think Hammersoft was talking about 100 printed pages worth of documentation?).  I'm sorry, I am looking at ArbCom cases now for more than 10 years, I have for long argued against anchoring, I have for long argued that there is nothing 'fair' here.  I am absolutely not surprised to see the comparisons to witch hunt, lynching being drawn here so soon (second post in this thread, Godwin's law is generally a result of long-drawn discussions that do not 'go anywhere').  (we're drifting away, this discussion is more general, not specifically this case.  This will just slowly go away, something needed to be done, it is done, so all is good.)  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are really arguing about this case on the basis of actual facts and first-hand examination. Information overload or one side overwheming another was not remotely a factor here. Whereas it was a problem on the medical arbcom, to the extent that I suspect many of the arbs only seriously read the PD page and the diffs presented there. -- Colin°Talk 16:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would caution, shouts of witch hunt, and lynching are ridiculous, and make the critique sound at the very least silly or insincere (at very most much worse than silly or insincere). Especially if you even barely know what a witch hunt or a lynching are.  There is nothing super-natural nor imaginary (not even an imaginary political threat nor thought) being sussed out, nor is there a murder. There is no crowd or vigilante administering a sentencing, there is no sentence at all (well, there are reams of senetnces, but not in the putative crime sense).  And there is no legal right in issue.  There is a movement  (as I recall in an open RfC that I have opposed) in the project to get a crowd involved in desysopping, but there will still be no murder and no legal right in issue.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Over the last few days, an awfully high number of the members of ArbCom have been criticized for doing various things that are not particularly ideal, insofar as use of admin privileges and conduct as members of ArbCom. The common thread in these incidents is editing or adminning while pissed off. I'm not talking here about the usual peanut-gallery criticism of decisions, but about actual incidences of actions or postings by Arbs. And I, personally, am not asking for anyone to be desysopped, resign, be boiled in oil, or anything else like that. I think people make mistakes. I think RexxS made mistakes. I think that doesn't always mean that ArbCom has to accept a case request and Wikipedia has to lose a valued contributor. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that the following stuff wasted so much oxygen, but I do hope that my original comment will be taken seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [Redacted. Bradv and Primfac have demonstrated that the entire post is to be removed, not the offending parts struck out] Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous non-answer. What you say never appeared on the Evidence page. And it also is unrelated to what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That off-topic nonsense is about Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive931. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just read Tryptofish's link and it indeed does not back up your claim, which of course could be taken as a personal attack. If you have other evidence, it would be much appreciated; if you do not, I invite you to strike your post. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [Redacted. Bradv and Primfac have demonstrated that the entire post is to be removed, not the offending parts struck out] Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [Redacted. Bradv and Primfac have demonstrated that the entire post is to be removed, not the offending parts struck out] Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How could ORCID out somebody? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm far too involved to revert anything, but I'd like to suggest that ArbCom or clerks revdel everything from Hemiauchenia"s first reply to me, to here, and instruct Hemiauchenia to submit anything privately. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , RexxS didn't out or harass anyone. I think you've misinterpreted or misremembered. SarahSV (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What was the actual context then? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , my recollection is that La Mona outed herself on WP, then someone (not RexxS) mentioned that name on Twitter, to which she objected. SarahSV (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that the edit summary "striking through the "outing" parts, as this aspect cannot be definitively proven with present information" is the most pathetic alternative to "Oh my God, I'm so sorry, I accused someone of OUTING when they didn't actually out anyone" I can imagine. Now I feel so stupid for advising others to calm down and stop threatening blocks on a related thread elsewhere.  I'm assuming an Arb is going to see this and block User:Hemiauchenia for not fully retracting and apologizing for unsubstantiated personal attacks?  Or do personal attacks on this page only result in blocks when they're directed at Arbs?  This culture of being able to say anything you fucking want to, and when called on it, leaving it there but just striking it out with no further comment, is sick.  Hemiauchenia and all his neo-Nazi sockpuppets should be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * as an administrator, you are free to block me if you feel that is appropriate. I have struck the "outing" aspect and have clarified the other aspects of the complaint so that it no longer qualifies as a "unsubstantiated personal attacks". The fact is that RexxS's conduct was in part responsible for a female long term contributor leaving Wikipedia for good, and that is well documented. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Well documented." Maybe it has to be translated into ORCID. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * so now it's a free-for-all, now that RexxS has been sanctioned and probably won't return. Congratulations for misplaced and imagined tit-for-tattery, and please drop the gender aspect, it's neither here nor there, and you well know that. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact is that RexxS's conduct was in part responsible for a female long term contributor leaving Wikipedia for good -- I'm glad to know that, apparently, as RexxS was a male long-term contributor, it's no big deal if he leaves Wikipedia for good. (And AfC, for which the WikiSpeak "another term for GAN" seems far too accurate, perhaps needs some outside eyes looking at it and calling people out when they treat it as such.) Vaticidal<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides, if someone will leave Wikipedia over being dragged to ANI, they're really a ticking time bomb, aren't they? (You could make the same argument of ArbCom, but I think the differences are clear enough that I don't need to elaborate on why the comparison doesn't make sense.) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm a bit puzzled having been out and about for the day and only getting around to wiki (minus a brief and lovely talk page exchange I did on mobile) now. As I understand it, an accusation was made and while no diff was presented (this is OUTING afterall) it was specific enough to be something other than aspersion. But actually it turned out to be false which was quickly pointed out to the original editor. That editor than struck the comment which was then redacted by Floq. Striking was, I thought, fully retracting a comment that had already been subject to subsequent discussion and thus couldn't just be deleted. Obviously redaction is an option too but I'm not familiar with that being a requirement. That seems like an adult response all around. Now editors shouldn't make habits of falsely accusing people of having OUTED others but there are a lot of things that happen on this page I would hope editors don't make habits of. Normally when there's outrage, I can understand it even if I don't agree with it, but here I have to be missing something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something too, because I cannot understand what it is you don't get. What you're missing is that, of all the things that happen on this page that you hope editors don't make habits of, the one that resulted in arbs reverting it and issuing a block was Giano blanket insulting ArbCom, not Hemiauchenia accusing RexxS (not even here to defend himself) of outing someone else with zero proof. Just made it up. It's not that there was no diff presented because of privacy, it's that there was no diff because it was not true and never happened.  What in the world does "" even mean? Do baseless accusations just have to be specific in order not to be aspersions?? What? Anyway, when confronted with proof that his false accusation was false, Hemiauchenia didn't apologize, they crossed it out with the smug edit summary "striking through the "outing" parts, as this aspect cannot be definitively proven with present information".  And then we get "well, anyway, they were mean". And then, the most outrageous thing of all, is yet another arb chimes in to say he doesn't find this particularly outrageous. Well, no, not just that he doesn't think it is outrageous, but that he can't even contemplate how any other person could find it outrageous.  But I'm just rewording what I said above, so I guess you're unlikely to understand this either.  I would be curious, however, if even one arbitrator finds Hemiauchenia false accusation a teeny tiny little bit disturbing.  And if so, if they could explain why Giano's insults were worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fortunately when he was falsely accused here, Rexx didn't need to be around himself in order for that accusation to be corrected (and thankfully he got over COVID so hopefully he'll be around again in the future). As noted I do find the false accusation something that shouldn't be repeated that's why I wrote (as you noted) that it shouldn't become a habit. However, the fact that he walked it back, through striking and then you redacted, means that I by the time I got here I just don't see a lot to do. I prefer it when people realize their own mistake and take action to correct it rather than having to use my admin authority (whether implicitly or explicitly). So yes finding you high on the outrage meter from an incident that seemed to be handled was confusing. But now I see it's really because you're upset about how Giano's statements (what you labeled as insults) were handled and so that explains the disconnect and now I understand. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (as patiently as possible) No, the problem is not how Giano's statements were handled. As I mentioned on his talk page, I wasn't terribly concerned about that. My problem - and it is taking all my self control to not put this bold all caps - is two-fold: (1) the fact that Hemiauchenia didn't admit he was lying, he just said he couldn't prove something with diffs, even after he was confronted with proof he was lying, and (2) the fact that the arbs were roused to action by Giano, and not by Hemiauchenia. You're not an idiot, don't pretend to be one for rhetorical purposes. And your smug, bad-faith characterization of why this bothers me is noted. Don't email me anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference between my comments and Hemiauchenia‘s is that my remarks contained more than a gram of truth and were justified, whereas Hemiauchenia‘s were blatant fabrication. Moreover, Hemiauchenia‘s lies suited the narrative this disreputable Arbcom are promoting. Giano    (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you could use this, please take to heart. Also believe me when I say no one cares about your opinion and we are all just sick of hearing it. PackMecEng (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Break 2

 * I just went back and looked over all of the archived cases from the beginning of 2015 to the present, looking in particular for those where the casename was the name of one or more administrators. Setting aside those cases where the named party resigned or retired or otherwise went away in such a matter that the case was suspended and never resumed, every one of those cases resulted in remedies applied to a named party. Zero exceptions. Early in the period, there was a single case in which parties were simply "reminded", but that was the only one, and all the others involved something ranging from admonishment to desysopping. (If I missed something, please correct me.) I think it's really hard to make the argument that ArbCom accepts case requests over administrative conduct even if the outcome is to find nothing wrong. Once such a case has been accepted, there is every appearance that somewhere in the evidence that will be brought forth, there will be something that leads a majority of active Arbs to find a basis for some sort of sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is a structural one though. There is no "neutral" body that decides which cases to hear but instead the same body that hears the cases is also the one that first decides whether to accept them. Naturally, the members of the body will preselect cases based on the likelihood of remedies being needed and reject those requests where they foresee a "nothing wrong" outcome before they become cases. If you want to change this, the policy would basically have to be amended to force ArbCom to take any case that is brought to it because even a third body to filter cases for ArbCom will tend to only accept cases where a remedy is likely. Regards So  Why  10:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of that is accurate, and is actually a very honest description of the reality here. And it leads to an unpleasant but inescapable conclusion: that once an admin conduct case request has been accepted, it's game over, because the Committee has "preselect[ed] the case based on the likelihood of remedies being needed". An entirely rational argument can then be made, that the named admin should not bother to participate and those editors who wish to present mitigating evidence are wasting their time. I guess the counter-argument to that is that mitigating evidence might change a severe remedy into a milder one, but still. I think that ArbCom should very seriously consider making a change to your internal policies and procedures, that you will treat future admin conduct cases as things to be resolved via motion, but not via full cases. Thus, reforms like eliminating Workshops may be missing the point. Ask for all responses by the named admin to be made on the case request page, allow some discussion there to analyze some evidence, and then deal with it by motion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cases are accepted or declined based on the comments on the request page. While that makes it more likely that cases are prefiltered towards sanctions, it's still not a foregone conclusion because the evidence still needs to be presented and assessed. To take a real life example I'm familiar with: In Germany, a person can only be indicted if the prosecutor believes there is a likelihood of a conviction. A judge then needs to agree before an indictment can move forward. The judge will only agree for the indictment to move forward if based on the case files it's more likely than not that the accused will be found guilty. But it is the same judge who will later preside over the trial and decide (since we don't have jury trials). Yet, about 30% of trials end without conviction (despite the judge having decided that conviction is likely before the trial began). Which makes me believe that in real life as on Wikipedia, you cannot forgo a case (trial) because you think the result is predetermined. It might be more likely but not set in stone. Regards So  Why  19:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In your example, 30% of trials end without conviction, but I just documented that in ArbCom 2015–today, it's 0%. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking out loud here, not sure whether this is a good idea or a fail, but... Maybe have the default be to resolve by motion, but allow for having a full case if the accused admin requests a full case (which experience suggests would not happen often). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What this points to is cognitive anchoring. Name a case for a participant in an RFAR and it's far more likely sanctions will be levied against that named party. I've spoken about this for years, to no avail. My own study of cases from 2009 to 2015 show that title named parties received 11 times more sanctions than non-title named parties. One of your prior colleagues on ArbCom even tried to say they were immune to the effects of this cognitive anchoring, even though studies have shown it to be unavoidable. You don't have to change how cases are accepted to change this. Simply change the name of cases to something neutral. It's not that hard. If this doesn't provide a convenient name to refer to the case in the future, then make a redirect for the case after it closes. While deliberations are going on, it's unconscionable that a supposedly neutral body would allow this anchoring to be present. If you can't see your way to doing that, in the very least ArbCom could not be so blatant with the bias in focusing a case on a single party. I don't blame RexxS for not participating. The outcome was a foregone conclusion due to ArbCom's bias. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The cases you 'studied' were admin conduct cases. By definition, they are focused on a single party. Calling them something other than the name of that editor is a euphemism, not neutrality. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can dismiss my comments if you like. The 'studied' is not lost on me of course. This is an age old, and refuted, argument. It's the same thing as saying "Well, we saw there was maybe a fire, named it a fire, and concluded it was a fire". Thank you're not the fire department. You might as well dismiss all admin cases by motion, because the conclusion is foregone. Further, my analysis was not limited only to cases named for administrators. It was for all cases where a party to the case appeared in the name of the case, 46 in total across that time period. It would be nice if ArbCom recognized that they are responsible for arbitrating disputes. Name only one party to a case, as you did in the most recent case, and there is no dispute. That is, unless ArbCom is taking the stance that RexxS was arguing with himself? There was absolutely no possible way that RexxS could get a fair trial here. In response, ArbCom is digging their heels in and refusing to acknowledge the very serious systemic bias they have built into their system, and not just in cognitive anchoring. I don't think anyone who is named in the title of the case should ever participate in the case. It's guaranteed to result in sanctions, it's impossible to respond to the blizzard of paperwork, and the named party has no opportunity for adequate defense of the claims against them. It's an absolute waste of time. Further, ArbCom has created a system where they reward the people who first bring the request for a case. In the initial request, several people called out problematic behavior by PR. Yet, ArbCom chose to ignore that and not only name the case for RexxS, but not even include PR as a party to the case. It would have been considerably more honest if ArbCom had simply said "We're going to desysop RexxS. Please give us the reasons to do so, so we don't look bad doing it". And so it goes on. ArbCom; Putting out fires since 2003, whether they exist or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than pontificating at length here, I suggest you take a good look at those 10 principles on your user page and identify which ones still apply, given your cantankerous outbursts in this particular matter. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will continue to raise issue with problems as I see them. If you object to something I have said in particular, I would be glad to hear of it. Objecting to me in general isn't a pathway forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will continue to raise issues with any elected functionary who sets out "principles" which they then breach with impunity. The word to describe it is hypocritical. The way you have gone about matters here, the loose language, rhetoric and hyperbole, is not what I expected when you passed YOUR RfA. I'm not looking for "a pathway forward" - I'm criticising your antics, regardless the high-powered support you have garnered. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So if you're not looking for a pathway forward, you are just criticizing? If you have an objection to something I've said, speak it. Speaking in generalities leaves no opportunity for either improvement or response. Again, if you object to me in general, there's no pathway forward. I recommend you do so on my talk page. This page is about the arbitration committee, not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I must have stumbled on the wrong place, reading this page it seems to be a venue where you make non-stop, sweeping criticism of Arbcom as being biased, dishonest and liken the decision they made to a lynching. Like I said, check those 10 principles you display with the words you have chosen to use here. Basically, you're too loud - and this isn't a suitable platform for your ACE2021 candidacy. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My talk page is here. I welcome your input. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * several people called out problematic behavior by PR For all the vague hints of impropriety, none of which seem to match up with the facts, it's telling that nobody took up offers to file an AN with their 'evidence'. Additionally, a lot of people in their analysis (pre-trimming, anyway) "called out" "problematic behaviour" on the part of various editors and admins, in every single one of the presented interactions. That doesn't automatically make it anything more than bluster. And indeed, it was all bluster. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Cmt No opinion about the outcome regarding Rexxs's sysop bit, but I thought arb cases were supposed to look at the conduct of everyone involved. There was scarcely any scrutiny of the case filer's conduct, which (per the opening statements) didn't smell anything like roses as far as I could tell.  That seems unfortunate. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Supposed to maybe, but the case was solely focussed on Rexxs, not on the problem. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the point, my comment is that the former practice has been ignored and we possibly got a crappy outcome as a result. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Cmt 2 Hammersoft, Tryptofish, Dirk, (?): I can certainly remember cases where the person particpated extensively and which resulted in mild sanctions where a desysop definitely looked possible. So I can't agree that the person should treat the outcome as a foregone conclusion and nope out of the case.  Also, before any case is accepted at all, there has normally been prior DR giving a priori evidence that intervention is necessary.  So I'm unconvinced of the point you're trying to make.  2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's possible that you are remembering it from longer ago than where I looked, but I did look at every case from 2015 until now. Although I didn't look at the extent of participation, I do know that there were significant sanctions, so I guess it's possible that participation could have converted a desysop into an admonishment, but I would have to see the specific case you are thinking of. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this case from 2008 shows that other conclusions (such as a temporary desysop, or a temporary restriction to not undo the action of another administrator) are indeed possible. Cardamon (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't have to go back that far. In the Medicine case (April-June 2020), admin Doc James was "prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.". Three other admins were parties but there were no findings of fact or remedies in which they were mentioned (this includes RexxS). Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would go further and say not to go back that far. 2008 was back when arbcom was taking like 40 cases a year,the bar was much, much lower. It is a good thing that many things that would've made it to an arbcom case back then get handled before it gets that far now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that happens with cases that investigate a broader problem, like in the medicine case mentioned. ALL editor conduct cases result in editor-focused remedies. Dirk Beetstra T  C 02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One case I had in mind was Magioladitis 1 from January 2017, that resulted in some very mild restrictions that were then ignored, resulting in a second case the same year which resulted in a desysopping. Neither case addressed the real problem, that of yet another overactive and obstinate bot operator being very difficult to stop.  Carlossuarez (recently suspended) is more of the same, and it sounds like Rexxs's opponent may have been doing something similar. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With apologies to the archiving bot, I want to link to a comment by that I find extraordinarily thoughtful and compassionate: . I'm not doing it to scold anyone on the Committee, but if each Arb can see yourself wherever you might fit in that comment, it's worth reflecting on as a learning experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add now that, as I and others predicted when this was the outcome, that disruption in COVID related articles has massively increased, and even with clear ANI posts other administrators aren't stepping in to fill the void left by this witch-hunt removing the admin most comfortable dealing with COVID general sanctions. Maybe if ArbCom had looked at why the issue started (i.e. another user attempting to disrupt COVID GS using their advanced template editor permissions), they would've seen the fuller picture and been able to reach a better conclusion. Any disruption, inaccuracies, and POV pushing that are now in COVID articles is solely ArbCom's fault at this point - because obviously they're all too good to have to deal with menial admin tasks and help out, right? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, we get that you're both inexperienced and upset. But give it a rest. Anyone would think you're doing this for charity. It was / is / will continue to be tiring in some areas of the project than others: so it was, so it shall remain. The COVID articles are no less patrolled, for example, than those of Southeast Asia. Which is nice.  ——  Serial  22:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for having reignited this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would've commented regardless of your post, and I presume SN54129 would've made the personal attacks against me regardless as well - because they've been doing so this whole discussion and nobody's asked them to stop. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt any ArbCom member will actually do it, but you're all administrators - please either put COVID talk pages on your watch list or go to ANI (where there's two active threads requiring easy COVID GS against editors) and help out. This topic area has devolved into disruption and you desysopped basically the only administrator willing to set foot in the area due to the massive amount of controversy and work they have to deal with. It's only decent if you would come help out so editors like myself can spend time having actual discussions instead of spending the limited time we have on Wikipedia fighting this disruption. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Longevity and discretionary sanctions
Do we have currently discretionary sanctions authorized in the area of longevity? WP:AC/DS lists the area as the one where sanctions have been previously authorized, but Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity has a 2014 motion rescinding the sanction and 2015 motion authorizing the sanctions, if I read it correctly. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you are reading it correctly. The 2014 motion was a "sweep" of a number of DS areas that, at that point in time, did not appear necessary. Apparently in 2015 it was re-authorized. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If this is the case, may be clerks can update WP:AC/DS?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The only update needed is to revise the comment section at the top of Template:Ds/topics to show 'longevity' as still active. ('Longevity' is included in the 'rescinded' section). The code word is 'old' for the Longevity sanctions and it is still in the table. Open up Template:Ds/topics and hit the 'edit' button and you'll see the longevity sanctions. I verified that subst:alert can still issue notices using topic=old. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In other words, the "longevity" sanctions are lasting a long time? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I was just waiting for someone to say that. Risker (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved longevity to active per, and I'm disappointed that NYB got to the joke before I could. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot everyone.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Motion regarding retaining personal identifying information

 * Original announcement
 * I just want to note here that this effort has been led by who is also doing the work of actually doing the required cleanup. Thanks to him for his leadership and work on this and I am glad this will become an annual task so that it will hopefully be a bit easier in future years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * i know arbcom notices don't have to meet FA status, but what does where possible, this should be stored at the checkuser wiki and that technical limitations of wiki software would potentially allow information to be accessed again in the future actually mean? Specifically the latter portion; surely the point of deleting the pages, etc., is so the material can't be "accessed again in the future"? ——  Serial  18:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question @Serial Number 54129. We are deleting the information from ArbWiki. However, because arbs are also admin it is still theoretically available. However, it takes the information out of searches and indexes and would require someone to go looking for it (and likely to know it existed in the first place). Speaking only for myself, I think practically it means the information becomes lost except maybe in the most exceptional of circumstances. Most of the private information relates to editors that long ago stopped editing and may never have been commonly known editors. Functionally the information will be removed even if technically it can be restored. I hope that makes more sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is technically possible to be temporarily granted OS on a private wiki by stewards, but I don't know how they would respond to such a request as it's not covered in the global OS policy. Given the differing account names, the log entry would probably have to be suppressed off Meta too. --Rschen7754 00:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What about assigning all users a "one-way oversight" capability? I.E. anyone can suppress, but not see what they (or others) have suppressed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But the data would still not really be removed, right? Just a perms change to access it again. It's not really 'ceasing to retain' the personal information if it's still being processed but is just less trivial to access. Surely the WMF can afford to develop an extension to enforce a reasonable data retention policy? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. But in the meantime, the attack surface would be smaller. But yes, a "delete this page for real after 90 days" button might be useful on some wikis. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A permissions change would presumably have to go through stewards so it wouldn't be accessible on demand. As far as one-way oversight, that would take software development. All this to say - the viewing of deleted content isn't ideal but might not be worth doing anything about given the effort for the alternatives. --Rschen7754 02:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Many thanks . ——  Serial  18:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbcomwiki runs on MediaWiki I presume; what does "delete" mean exactly in this context? Levivich harass/hound 18:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Levivich: it means either page deletion (by far the most common) or revision deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that mean that it's still accessible the same way deleted revisions on enwiki are accessible? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, yes. I believe we are using an older version of MediaWiki though, it's a bit funky, you would need to know exactly what you were looking for to recover any of the deleted material. The biggest chunk of this is a lot of old WP:BASC business, which is mostly stuff the committee wouldn't even be involved with these days. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom wiki runs the exact same version of MediaWiki that the English Wikipedia does. Legoktm (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, something is a bit off with it anyway... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How will this help if/when an ArbCom account is compromised? That seems by far the most likely route for information to be disclosed. If it's going to be "deleted" it should be accessible only to developers, or maybe one or two ArbCom members, tops. Or even "deleted for real" if such a thing is possible. Otherwise this seems like security theater. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Compromise of an arbwiki account is relatively unlikely. Usernames on that wiki are not identical to those on enwiki (for beans reasons I won't say more about how they differ, obviously), so you'd have to figure out someone's arbwiki account name first before you could even try to breach the password. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What about the mailing lists? Presumably info is sent there first, then copied into arbwiki? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Short historical note: Arbcom wiki was created without much thought to security at the time; it's a very old private wiki, and different versions of the committee have used it differently. As new features were added to MediaWiki, there was no consideration of whether or not they were "safe" on private wikis where membership changed regularly and which had specific privacy concerns; for example, when the facility to receive email notices about pages on watchlists was made default, it didn't include the ability to turn it off once an account was blocked. We had to get one of the very few developers with the requisite permissions to deactivate accounts from server side, and it was never a priority until they realized there was a true security risk.  Ultimately, we managed to get a special "account deactivation" tool that includes automatic deactivation of email notices as well as a few other features. The same principle was applied to the naming of accounts; at one point, we realized that it was a real security risk, and developed a different username pattern for that project. In fairness, it is difficult to justify investing a lot of time and effort to create specialized modifications for a private wiki when there are (and especially, were) so few people with the necessary qualifications and so much more important work to do. I really support the idea of deleting unneeded stuff off Arbwiki, and transferring anything sock-related that involves private info to the appropriate wiki. (To clarify: the fact that an account has requested unblock, and any "vote" on that unblock request, don't in any way cross that line, so they don't have to go; things with IP addresses (and possibly email addresses) probably should be deleted/removed/transferred.) I can think of some other things that the 2009-2013 Arbcoms used Arbwiki for that should definitely be deleted (with at most a brief summary), but for all I know they've been deleted for years.  Risker (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They haven't. A large portion of what I've identified for deletion is WP:BASC business. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Another historic note: OS was a one way-ish tool that required the devs to undo it until the suppression tool replaced the oversight tool c. 2009. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Arbs: Just to repeat my question more clearly: Data incoming to be put on the private wiki has to come from somewhere. Presumably some of it comes from an email on the mailing lists. Is that corresponding email in the mailing list archives (and/or your personal mailboxes) also going to be deleted, or are those retained? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , One step at a time - but at present, we currently retain the entire history of Arbcom mailing list. It's searchable but not easily browsable due to the interface - in other words, looking for something specific can be found but idle snooping is less likely to be done.
 * I'm currently still thinking about options for the mailing list, from wholesale deletion to something more streamlined. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks WTT. I don't want to sound too critical, as this is certainly a symbolic step in the right direction, but I think this motion falls short of what's necessary. The 'deletion' on arbwiki seems more like deindexing than deletion; it just flicks the value of a  column from 0 to 9, which isn't really deletion, and the data continues to be processed. It's also still available in the mailing lists, and if those are imported into a 21st century browser they could presumably be searched with relatively ease. The significant number of years requirement seems vague and seems to be a bit like 'what a present Committee feels appropriate and whenever a volunteer gets around to it', and the retention guidelines for CUs remain ambiguous as well. I appreciate the Committee is limited on what it can do within the software's technical constraints, and also you have a backlog from predecessor committees, so again I'm not criticising but I hope the Committee will continue to develop on the principles it laid out in this motion, including developing a clearer & concrete retention policy. Ideally in coordination with the WMF for technical solutions, such as getting them to develop a tool that actually allows for deletion or migrating to a platform that does. Since the rest of the world got around to this several years ago, the WMF really should've devised a plan and provided options for ArbComs on these issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I will say that this motion was not designed to be posted to the community, and instead was meant to be kept as an internal motion, to 1) make sure that everyone on the committee was on the same page and 2) legitimise the hard work that was doing to clear out our old data.The way I see it, we have a number of factors in play here. From a technical point of view, the arbitration wiki is a wiki, running on media-wiki. That, therefore, works based upon revisions - and therefore does not have a good "deletion" functionality. As a drafting space, it works well, but as a storage place for personal data, it does not. The WMF has not provided a "hard delete" function. We've had discussion about turning on suppression / oversight tools, however, these still have an "undelete" option. So, we have to be pragmatic. We get rid of what we can, transporting it to the CU wiki where appropriate and / or deleting to making it difficult to find. From a data type point of view - largely the information we have is not problematic. It's not identifiable to an individual, in that I could look at the data and not know who the person is behind the account, nor could I reasonably find out who the person is based on the information I had access to. That's not 100% the case, but it is for the vast majority of cases. So, again pragmatically, the work that is being done is a Good ThingTM, but it's a housekeeping task. So, I would argue that it does do what is "necessary". Now, morally, I believe we should go further than "necessary" as I say, the question what to do with Mailing list archives (which are searchable, currently back to the formation of arbcom), is something that is on my mind. It needs some sort of purge / housekeeping, but I haven't worked out how best to do that. Certainly, I have every intention to not let this issue drop, and have been nudging it along gently for years. I will note in closing that the retention guidelines for CUs is a global issue, and should be held at a meta level. All CUs should be following Data retention guidelines which include as long as reasonably necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use or help protect against vandalism and abuse, fight harassment of other users, and generally try to minimize disruptive behavior on the Wikimedia Sites. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

 * Original announcement


 * Thanks to all who took part. Time will tell whether the modifications help curb disruption in the topic area; the discussion certainly helped me understand various people's perspectives on the issues. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the notice gives "World War II" and a date range of 1933-45. Which is meant? Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's from the original case with the intent (I believe without having reread it) to capture build-up prewar. So to answer your question the years are the full range here. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That was the reasoning I picked up when I proposed the ultimate form. The particularly controversial "bubble" absolutely didn't kick-off when Poland was physically invaded. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Changes to functionary team

 * Original announcement


 * Thank you for your service. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 14:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bit of a shame, this - while I've disagreed with DGG on a number of things, it's always been done politely and I trust his judgement. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC). I add that I have invariably agreed with your views. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC).
 * David, I'm sad to see you leave the CU team; I hope you will continue to stay around and contribute in other ways. It's so nice to have people around with whom you can disagree about some point of policy and yet come away from the interaction knowing that they have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just for context here: the committee has the responsibility of periodically auditing activity levels. The committee is usually not overly strict about this, but we will ask team members who are not using the tools if they intend to start using them again in the future, that's all that is going on here. David is still a valued member of the oversight team and an active admin. I've had the pleasure of meeting him in person and I'm pretty sure he'll stick around here basically forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 discretionary sanctions authorised

 * Original announcement


 * Convenient shortcut: WP:COVIDDS. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way. The strikethrough formatting and insertion tags (permanent link of what I'm referring to) could be removed; they may cause an incorrect impression of a previous case's remedy having been reworded. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll update that. I left it in so that it there was the exact wording (ins tags and all) but I see what you mean. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 01:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt this will be the last AC will see of this, but I think it's a great start and may help with the scope in the future. — Ched (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank the Committee for taking this step, and hope it will have the effect that more admins will be willing to police the subject area and deal out sanctions if necessary. It is important that the topic be as factual as possible, whichever way those facts send us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Uhooep unblocked

 * Original announcement


 * Editing restrictions/Placed by the Arbitration Committee hasn't been updated yet with this new entry. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 08:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 and Praxidicae interaction ban modified

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 closed

 * Original announcement

Remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case clarified

 * Original announcement

TheresNoTime permissions restored

 * Original announcement

Great! Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 02:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yahoo! Welcome back, TNT! SPI is thataway -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you back, TNT! <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">!ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  02:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Government in exile-thanks! El_C 08:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hooray! Welcome back! :) firefly  ( t · c ) 08:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! I'm happy to see that you're still with us. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Extraordinarily excellent news Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good! -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 07:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Very happy to hear this. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good news indeed! Jusdafax (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

CodeLyoko reappointed as a trainee clerk

 * Original announcement


 * Welcome back! <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">!ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

changes to Oversight team

 * Original announcement


 * Thanks for your previous work as an Oversighter, and also thanks for your continued work as a checkuser. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your service. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 21:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Firefly appointed trainee clerk

 * Original announcement


 * Awesome, Welcome aboard! <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">!ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  22:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your appointment, Firefly. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Happy to have you on the team. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Firefly! Best of luck with the training! Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Firefly! -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  14:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

 * Original announcement

I think the way the committee has handled this has been reasonable given the circumstances and agree it's not appropriate for anyone on Wikipedia or on behalf of the community to be investigating someone's alleged real life identity further. Nil Einne (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad the bot mistakenly posted a notice to her talk page, or I never would have known this was going on. I agree with Nil. The arbs have an extremely tough job (one that I would not take if they paid me) and although I still don't really know the full story (nor want to), I think the handling of this is very tactful. In my own opinion, I would find it extremely reprehensible to find out someone faked their own death --reprehensible in the highest order of the word-- considering all the pain and grief it caused so many people. The only thing I could think of that would surpass it would be for someone to make such claims publicly without 100% proof-positive, considering all the pain and grief it causes people. This whole thing makes my skin crawl. It certainly is completely inappropriate for anyone to go searching for any Wikipedian's true identity; that's sacrosanct. Zaereth (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Deceased_Wikipedians/Guidelines states in part: The first step is to make absolutely sure that the user in question has indeed died. Due to the off-wiki documentation that ArbCom received which disputes Flyer22's alleged death, will you be removing the deceased template from her page? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The committee reached no such conclusion. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  00:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think that is the something the committee can reach a conclusion on regardless, as a matter of remit, if I understand the announcement correctly. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically, yes. Additionally, I don't think it falls under our remit to determine whether an editor was correctly listed at Deceased Wikipedians or whether an account was correctly tagged as deceased since neither influenced the Committee's decision nor were obligatory reactions to said decision. Regards So  Why  10:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that language is to prevent hasty pronouncements ("So-and-so hasn't edited in a while! They're probably dead."), and not to authorize investigations into real-world identities. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Good handling. Regarding the mechanics, since Flyer22 Frozen has made no claim that they are alive, they are either deceased or making an immense deception by omission...either way that should make the current status of that account a done deal.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "We must ask editors to bear in mind that while the Arbitration Committee can be privy to some evidence that cannot be shared on-wiki, such as checkuser findings, the scope of our responsibilities and authority is still limited. We are a committee of volunteers who are elected to help solve disputes arising on a website. Our authority and responsibilities do not include conducting forensic investigations off of the site. For example, in connection with the current allegations, someone sent us documentation purporting to reveal the identity of Flyer22, and suggested that we investigate, perhaps even reaching out to that person and members of their family to determine whether and when the identified person had passed away. It would not be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee or anyone else to do these things, and we have not and will not do so."
 * Agree that this is a sensible handling of the issue. However, we do have a group of paid employees who could do this - T&S. This feels like a significant enough issue to have them explore, as if the contentions made are found to be true, the Commitee and/or community would likely take strong action. T&S are paid employees, have reasonable expertise in this field, and could absolutely take action to try and confirm or deny the allegations. Considering the potential implications of an adverse finding, I believe the Committee should ask them to do so. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are we talking threats of immanent harm? By the deceased person or towards them? To what potential implications do you refer? Stalking and outing? Wikipedians have the right to simply disappear if they so choose, and I suppose there's no law against faking your own wiki-death, if that were even the case. But why would anyone want to do such a thing. Logically, it makes no sense for there is no rational reason for a long-term Wikipedian to do so, so you'd have a hard time convincing me of it. But either way, that's neither here nor there, as they could just as easily disappear. It would be reprehensible to fake one's own death, and I would likely lose all respect for that person, but it's not any violation of policy. It's ten-fold more reprehensible to make such an accusation publicly, in my opinion, because that adds the appearance of shaming to the grief and pain. What really troubles me is the part about actively searching out a Wikipedian's true identity, because that's really giving me the creeps. This all seems like a badly-written soap opera, whereas in real life people don't normally have this level of drama. Zaereth (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the simple reason that, despite the statement by the Committee and the encouragement from editors below, I just can't see this going away without something more definitive. I wish it would, I think it would be the best for everyone in these circumstances, but that isn't how things seem to go around here when ambiguous issues remain, for want of a better word, 'unresolved'. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO it seems clear that the committee has either already rejected the idea of contact T&S implicitly or explicitly, or (unlikely IMO) done it but felt there was no need to announce part. In the IMO extremely unlikely event it's not something that occurred to them but they'll consider it now that it's been mentioned and for some reason they wish community feedback, that's up to them to ask. It also seems clear there is no chance the community will come to consensus to make a community referral to T&S. Indeed many editors feel it isn't something worth discussing. Given all that, there's no point in public discussion on the matter. If an editor wishes to contact T&S by themselves, that's up to them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As Beeblebrox notes below ArbCom has been in contact with T&S about this topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like Barkeep beat me to it, but as Beeblebrox said below, T&S were contacted, albeit not likely for the reasons Daniel would like, and per policy they will not be revealing the results of anything they do find. That's not what T&S is for. My question to Daniel is, "Why is it any of our business?" The answer is: it's not. I have my own reasons both on and off wiki not to even question it. I take great pains to keep both worlds separate at all times, but for some reason I don't fully understand, Flyer considered me a friend. She wasn't perfect by any means and had this compulsive need to take the bait, and in the few times I offered her advice I was very blunt with her, but I've known people with similar personalities. At the end of the day, however, she was one of the most brilliant people I've come across and at heart had the best interests of the project in mind. I have no doubt in my mind that she... she's gone. But at the end of the day, that's absolutely nobody's business but hers and her family's. It doesn't affect the sockpuppet case one iota. For all the purposes of Wikipedia, the account known as Flyer22 is gone for good. It's time to put the shovels down and let the dead rest. This just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Zaereth (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both. I was thinking in light of these comments arbcom may mention something but missed it. Zaereth, I understand and mostly agree with you. But can also see even if I don't agree with, why others feel what's alleged here is troubling enough to warrant investigation noting that while the investigation being called for is based on real life identities, the stated concern relates only to on-Wikipedia behaviour. I guess my ultimate point is by this stage with both the ANI thread and this discussion, I think it's getting to the point where people have sufficiently mentioned their POV on whether further investigation is warranted and given it's an extremely emotive issue connected to a specific named deceased editor, it's not really worth anyone trying to convince anyone else on what, if anything, should happen next especially outside any suggestions something different should happen on Wikipedia. If an editor wants to contact T&S, they should just do so. Unless T&C actually make some public statement or question, it's not worth us discussing, nor trying to convince anyone they shouldn't whatever people's generally misgivings about T&S. Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood, and as always, your opinions are much appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I really don't see how knowing the truth behind this matter is crucial to the project of building an encyclopedia. It seems the issue with sock puppetry can be handled without knowing for sure who is the sock puppet. It feels like we can safely carry on working on the project without solving this mystery. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 01:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I think you mean "who is the sock master". There are exactly three possibilities - (1) Flyer is deceased, meaning sockpuppetry is nothing to do with them, in which case the socks should be dealt with like any other (i.e. blocks for all confirmed connected accounts); (2) Flyer is not deceased and the sockpuppetry is nothing to do with them, in which case the socks should be dealt with like any other (i.e. blocks for all confirmed connected accounts); (3) Flyer is not deceased and is responsible for the sockpuppetry, in which case the socks should be dealt with by blocking all confirmed connected accounts. It is unlikely (given Flyer's last edits were over 6 months ago) that any new socks could be confirmed to be related to that account so the practical difference between options 1, 2 and 3 is exactly zero. Additionally, Flyer's account is globally locked (as is standard practice for deceased Wikipedians) so even if it were possible to confirm a connection, locally blocking the account would make no practical difference. (Musings about a Wikipedia of the afterlife, while potentially interesting, are not relevant here). TL;DR it makes no practical difference to the project whether Flyer is alive and socking, alive and not socking, or not alive. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 has in the past said that she was brought to tears when she felt her reputation was threatened (for alleged socking). Flyer22 was brought to arbitration in December 2020 for an alleged intractable pattern of psychological abuse towards editors. In response, she announced her retirement, and received an outpouring of sympathy. Twelve hours after the proposed decision was posted, Flyer22 was reported as deceased. The arbitration case against her was dismissed, and the proposed sanctions against her were dropped. In response she received an outpouring of sympathy, and maintained a positive reputation.
 * Faking a death is psychological manipulation. If we are to stop future psychological violence in our community we must acknowledge it when it happens. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Warning to Kolya Butternut: I will indefinitely block you if there is any continuation of this battle on-wiki (examples from above: diff + diff). If you have any additional evidence, email it to Arbcom. Otherwise, any further speculation or other pot-stirring will result in an indefinite block. I am probably involved due to my past support for Flyer so I am posting here rather than on your talk for review by uninvolved editors. I would prefer that someone completely uninvolved issued the block but someone has to stop this bizarre spectacle. Even Wikipediocracy has banned those seeking to bludgeon the horse and it is past time for that to be applied here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't consider myself completely uninvolved here either, having been critical of Flyer in the past and contributing to the case, but Kolya Butternut I very strongly advise you to make no more comments about Flyer at all. If you have something you think the arbitration committee needs to know, email it to them. Treat it as a topic ban from the subject of Flyer22, broadly interpreted. Thryduulf (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I mentioned to Johnuniq before that I think we have to be careful about not pouring more oil on the fire by being too heavy handed given the risk it would make things worse. But I'd fully support an indef, even one by Johnuniq, or cban of you if you post about this again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, but I was close to warning Kolya Butternut myself after the ANI thread, and I fully endorse the warning here. KB needs to drop this and move on. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * +1. This has long since become disruptive to the project. —valereee (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just say this: if anyone is using "psychological violence", then I would say it's the person dredging all of this up making a public spectacle out of it. I shed real tears when I found out Flyer22 had passed, and to bring this back up in such a way is just ... horrible. Absolutely horrible. We bury the dead for a reason, and it's time I think to let this rest in peace. Zaereth (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * and, are editors going to be permitted to continue to make accusations and cast WP:ASPERSIONS about Flyer22, and about specific accounts that said editors think are socks but have not faced any sanctions? I have seen this happening outside of this thread too, in article and talk spaces. I can provide links if requested. I ask that ArbCom state specifically that editors must cease doing so and that all further concerns about sockpuppetry (edit: regarding any possible socks of the named blocked accounts) belong at SPI, not on article talk pages or other inappropriate venues. Crossroads -talk- 03:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As has been explained, there is no way to prove anything here, as any route taken would step into outing an editor's identity. Editors should stop playing that game, especially if it takes conspiracy and whispering campaign routes. Flyer's reputation flies high in the history of Wikipedia, and will continue to do so. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Crossroads, as reiterated in the statement, there is a real person behind every account, and even investigations into wrongdoing need to take that simple fact into account. Those who persist in inappropriate speculation in order to defame another editor (or the memory of an editor) are in violation of our anti-harassment policies and should be dealt with accordingly. This applies everywhere, but especially when these accusations are posted at inappropriate venues such as article talk pages, as they can have the effect of intimidating unrelated editors based solely on their points of view, and thereby compromising NPOV. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  04:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So what are editors supposed to do when there are strong behavioural similarities between "new" WP:SPAs or other focused accounts and former Flyer-family accounts? I am not talking about similarity based solely on their point of view, but reflecting whole range of (potentially involuntary and voluntary) behaviours editors bring to their editing. Are we supposed to "turn off" our involuntary recognition when a new account shows the wiki knowledge and habits of specific, much more experienced editors? My understanding is that, in the case of banned former wikipedians, behavioural WP:DUCK evidence is normally considered and evaluated by admins on a case by case basis. When editors run into (what appear to be) the same issues here - whether joe-jobbing, copy-catting or actual sock behaviour, what are we supposed to do in this instance? Newimpartial (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Newimpartial, legitimate investigations into sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry can and should happen at SPI, or, for more private matters, by email to ArbCom. Even among the accounts listed in this announcement there exists a variety of editing styles and checkuser results, and there is equally a variety of possible explanations for that evidence. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  04:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment about the variety of styles and results is undoubtedly true, and I certainly agree that the correct place to make these decisions is SPI. But when is the SPI page to be set up, then? Have I missed something? Newimpartial (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, we're still working on setting up an SPI page for this. But there will be one shortly. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  04:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Crossroads – Of this I am very sure of: Flyer22 is gone from this earth. What I am not sure of is what ArbCom is going to do with the editors who have been obsessed over Flyer22's existence and have created a whirlwind of gossip and connivances involving her name. Because if the editor/s who have engaged in this wicked behavior is/are not dealt with strongly and with finality by ArbCom ... they will rear their ugly head again in the future over another editor they detest, be said editor alive or dead.   Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 14:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be darned. That is a lot of socks. The only thing I am confused on is why this was brought up in the context of Flyer22? Has there been a confirmed connection that someone who has access to the Flyer22 Frozen account accessed one (or several) of these sock accounts? I don't mean to get all WP:BEANS here (so just tell me if this question probably shouldn't be answered), but how would a connection even be possible to prove if that account was locked? &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Most likely, the reason they brought up Flyer22 is that they found some editing similarities which they suspect some members of the community will notice. 93.172.226.66 (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this was a reasonable compromise by ArbCom. To those who wish the Committee had said something more definitive, I'm guessing that you've never been in the sickening position of seeing a loved one gratuitously insulted after their death. I've thought for several months now that something seriously weird was going on with certain accounts in the GENSEX topic area, and the conspiracy-theory-esque explanation discussed here did come to mind as a possibility (long before I was aware anyone felt similarly). Major SPIs often have a whiff of conspiracy theory to them, even when correct, so that wasn't itself an impediment; but every time I considered saying something on-wiki I was reminded of what it felt like to see a loved one's name dragged through the mud publicly without them being around to defend themself.In a case where the cost of being wrong is so high, and where socks can be blocked per usual without need for a definitive answer on the central allegation, I'd echo (maybe from a more sympathetic POV) those above suggesting that people move on from any attempt to discuss it publicly. There's still important work to be done catching the socks of this sockmaster, whomever they are; and no one can take away your right to privately feel whatever you feel. I think most of us who've been around a while have a few pet theories of "X is a sock of Y" that, for one reason or another, we will not or cannot repeat publicly. Usually the stakes there are much lower than potentially rubbing salt in the wounds of the bereaved. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a Flyer22-shaped hole in our anti-paedophilia defences at the moment, and I would welcome anyone willing to step into her shoes. If they had very similar editing behaviours to her, I would not personally see any reason to dig into that.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but this statement has been intentionally crafted to be deliberately ambiguous (and not actually answer the questions that need answering) so as to avoid ARBCOM having to justify positions it would rather not take: Is there a reasonable suspicion that the person behind the Flyer22 (and by extension the sockpuppets listed above) is still active? Are the associated 'family' accounts (no mention of Halo Jerk1 I see above) linked in any way? Given that Flyer22 clearly and obviously retired (prior to the deceased notice) specifically to avoid an arbcom case regarding their behaviour, you are being a bit too generous by concentrating on *only* any good work they may have done. The problem with editors who sock on this scale is that the 'editing behaviours' are often not ones that we should encourage. There is also the basic problem which should be clear from the muzzling of Kolya above: how do you enforce an interaction ban of one editor with someone who may/may not be deceased? We hold that bans in general apply to the person behind the account, not the account itself. Schrödinger's Ban is not a policy situation that lends itself to fair application. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Those questions don't need answering though. The arbcom case was needless: it could have been handled at a much lower level but for political reasons, wasn't.  I know F22 found it really stressful, but in fact the only outcome was going to be a two-way iban with an editor whose own behaviour wasn't above criticism.  We do need volunteers doing the work that F22 did.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * S Marshall is correct, those questions don't need answering, per Thryduulf above. There isn't a need to worry about an IBan with an anonymous trolling sockmaster - new accounts showing up to harass editors are blocked on the spot (and goodness knows that F22 had enough of those to contend with herself). Knowing the identity of the master behind these accounts does not change how we should deal with the situation going forward. I'll add that I'm disappointed with how you characterise the warning that was given to KB - what we don't need here is any more drama or inflammatory language. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem which you both seem to have missed is that any *new* editor who takes up editing in a manner similar to Flyer22, in the same areas, good or bad, is likely to be accused of being a sock, and without definitive statements regarding their accounts, that will continue. That some personally dont care who is behind an account is not the general situation amongst editors. The second issue is that Kolya has pointed to a relevant UCOC (which like it or not, applies to every editor) clause - by forcibly shutting down any discussion Kolya has no recourse except to the T&S team. Where they can now cite that the ENWP administration is deliberately preventing them from seeking recourse against psychological manipulation. Given the complete lack of any useful information in this statement that would have put the situation to rest (honestly ARBCOM, either say nothing, or disclose everything, but dont wishy-washy in the middle) does anyone actually want to give T&S a reason to start poking their noses in. There actually is a reasonable argument a competant T&S team should be brought on-board given the issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) I don't see the relevance of any deceased editor to any of this. If a bunch of accounts are created clearly sharing behavioural patterns, then absence of a very good explanation, they will be blocked as socks. If future accounts appear matching these behavioural patterns, they will rightfully be blocked as a part of the earlier sock farm. In other words, as things stand, decease editors are irrelevant. If the allegations are correct that the User:Daner's Creek sock farm (using that name as it seems to be the oldest account linked above) is behaviourally indistinguishable from a deceased editor, then any new editor who appears with these behavioural traits is always going to be accused of being a sock of Daner's Creek anyway. There is zero reason to bring up any deceased editor. Since the sock is unwelcome, ibans are largely irrelevant. The sock is not welcome to interact with anyone here. And as long as the sock is not claiming any connection to any deceased editor, then there is no need for us to worry whether some editor with an iban is violating that by tracking the sock. Outside of ibans, if any editor here is only willing to track some sock if they can accuse them of being socks of some deceased editor and unwilling to do the work if they need to accuse them of being socks of Daner's Creek then it seems fine for us to tell them to bugger off. I guess theoretically you could get a situation where the behavioural similarities are close enough to some deceased editor but not close enough to the Daner's Creek sockfarm that we can't deal with it. But that doesn't seem something worth worrying about especially since if the claim is true, it's unlikely this is a situation which will last for long. Eventually the editor will connect themselves with the Daner's Creek sock farm. There are two situations I can think of where we may have to seriously consider what to do which I won't mention for WP:BEANs reasons. One of them cannot ever arisee anymore. The other I find very unlikely, and in any case IMO can only arise after 1-2 years at a minimum. Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "I don't see the relevance of any deceased editor to any of this." Would the same be true if they were not allegedly deceased? Of course not. Which is rather the point isnt it, because then your last couple of sentences become even more problematic. And to address Aquillion below: Any SPI now is largely worthless given the sitting on this for nearly 4 months. Most of the socks above were blocked in April. Flyer's account was inactive before that, as was Halo. Had this notice and an SPI been posted at the time action was taken, it would be have been significantly easier to investigate at the time, with the restrictions on checkuser data retention (assuming they have been followed), a large amount of data will be stale. Which reeks of deliberate intent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's likely to be that big of a problem; we have similar issues whenever there's a persistent sock in a controversial topic area. Based on what's been said a WP:SPI page will be created, under the name of the first confirmed sock, to operate under the presumption that this is or could be a joe-job; at that point it's just a standard SPI - behavioral and technical evidence are handled there as a matter of course.  Nothing else needs to be done. It isn't as though making definitive statements regarding their accounts will stop the sock from socking; whoever they are, they're already blocked as a persistent sock-farm and new instances are blocked on sight, which is the worst we can do to them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only do the questions not need answering (on WP, on Wikipediocracy, or otherwise), the underlying premise "Flyer22 ... retired ... to avoid an arbcom case" is farcical. You can't avoid an ArbCom case by retiring; the case will proceed without you, which Flyer22 knew, and Flyer22 was well aware of the case's progression in absentia, and that the worst that would come out of it would probably be a two-way I-ban.  She retired because she was in failing health and the hobby was no longer fun for her but a source of drama.  It defies reason to suggest she's really alive and generating an  drama by faking her death and returning as a string of sock puppets, who on close examination share virtually nothing in interests, style, edit types, etc., they just happen to have intersected pages that Flyer22 used to patrol.  They're all probably socks of various banned editors, but not of the same person, and certainly not of Flyer22.  This is just getting into crazy conspiracy-theory territority, especially since Flyer22 was a sock-hunter.  I'm reminded of the stupid "[Spoiler - insert trusted national security agent name here] is really a terrorist" jumping-the-shark plot twists in late seasons of 24 and Spooks / MI-5.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If they had very similar editing behaviours to her, I would not personally see any reason to dig into that. The problems are...  first, there's a serious chance the socks are joe-jobs; that is, in fact, a much more serious problem than if Flyer22 were alive. And second, as I understand it (keeping in mind details of the case aren't public), the socks are violating WP:BADSOCK all on their own, independent of anything else. So they have to be blocked regardless of who the sockmaster is. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a footnote to that, it is somewhat relevant that we have a decade or more of Flyer family editing and less than a year of the new (joe-job?) socks, so it is certainly easier to detect behavioural patterns using the longer of those timelines. Of course, we are talking about BADSOCK activity regardless. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would assume that the SPI will mention that the sock-farm edits using the patterns of the deceased editor... or something to that effect without implying they're the same person (probably also with some wording about being cautious with how you word reports), since that is central to understanding what's happening, detecting them, and writing a reasonable report for them, and is part of the reason they're blocked in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As I and others have said, Wikipedia has no need to explore this. There can't be edits by the Flyer22 Frozen account unless Flyer22 Frozen asserts that they are alive, in which case (only) then there would be many issues to deal. If not, there is nothing Flyer22 Frozen-specific that needs doing. Even the worst case scenario (regarding Wikipedia) of them being an anonymous sockmaster can be handled in the normal ways without dealing with an account that isn't editing and, absent a self-claim that they are alive, won't be editing. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you know they’re socks but also can’t pin a master, what did the CU evidence find in this case? Were they on proxies (if so, were the proxies shared between accounts)? Were they from a location known to be the same as another editor? I guess basically, why did CU come to the conclusion that they’re socks? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , information gleaned from CU about IP addresses can't be shared publicly, so I'd advise you not to hold your breath waiting for an answer to this question. If CU data could show links between the accounts listed above (and their behaviour was such as to indicate WP:BADSOCK editing), that would be enough to warrant sockblocks regardless of whether or not it was possible to link them to a particular master. I think that if there were any more information that the arbs felt able to provide, they would have already done so. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well put. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't hurt to ask. I don't see why such details can't be provided (CheckUsers may state that different named accounts are operated from the same IP or range, so long as the actual IP address(es) are not specified, or if only non-specific details are given (such as the name of the country, region, or large ISP associated with the IP address). If the CheckUser's statement could not lead to another person divining the personal identity of the user accounts in question, such disclosure would be permissible), but of course it is up to the CUs/ArbCom if they want to answer it or not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , no offense intended (seriously, I mean that), but why do you want to know? Will the disclosure of information about what the CU data showed enhance your editing experience, or make community members safer? I know there is a natural urge to dig deeper and find out more, but satisfying a natural curiosity isn't really a good reason to disclose stuff like this. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A CU can either choose to answer it or not. Either way I won't be particularly offended. It would certainly add context to the legitimacy of the allegations made above, or clarify if it's entirely possible (or even likely) that it's just joe jobbing, which itself isn't uncommon at all. Given that the CU who actually made these blocks seemed to find the now-deleted SPI appropriate, it seems worthwhile asking (to the extent policy allows disclosure) what led to that conclusion. That could also assist in dealing with future puppets, the same way information on WP:LTA subpages does. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From the perspective of a non-checkuser raising an SPI about a suspicious new account, access to the IP data (in terms of ranges, proxies etc) doesn't help you - you have to go on behavioural similarities and request CU. A lot of checkusers have now looked at this and I expect there is now a wide body of highly trusted people who will be able to assist with future reports. Can I urge you to stick a finger in the air and see whether you think the wind is blowing in a 'there is nothing further to be said, and this is causing pain to the real people behind the usernames, so let's all collectively move on' direction? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You asked me a question and I answered, hence this thread. An alternative short ending to this thread could've been a CU saying "We don't want to answer that, because it would cause real pain to the real people behind the usernames." and that would be the end of the matter. No response would also be the end of the matter. The blocks also seem to be of three separate masters (Daner's Creek, RandoBanks, RazTazz) which is also unexplained, and clarifying whether there is one master or three (for example) would probably also help with SPI efforts. Again, answering these questions seems to be a decision for the responding (or non-responding) CU/arb, and it's unclear to me why the thread had to be any longer than the question and potentially one answer. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is nothing Flyer22 Frozen-specific that needs doing, then why was this framed as a statement regarding Flyer 22 Frozen? What do RandoBanks, et al. have to do with Flyer22? These accounts were all blocked 118 days ago, so what was the point of this announcement in reality? &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe this is response to this thread Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1075. As to this talk of "behavioral evidence" more than once over the years I have seen editors use socks to edit in the manner of an editor they were in a dispute with (or that they disliked) to try and get said editor blocked or banned. Flyer 22 Frozen has a long editing history and it would be simple enough to copy her style. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Now this makes a lot more sense! Thank you MarnetteD. { &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just on it would be simple enough to copy her style - and anyone doing so in violation of WP:SOCK restrictions needs to be stopped, to avoid disruption on the project and distress to editors. Which is why the (forthcoming?) SPI page on this issue is needed, as was ArbCom's announcement. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking through the histories and connecting the dots, it appears to me that this all started with an SPI and an ANI discussion that were both opened naming Flyer22 as the potential sockmaster, which (as it seems obvious was the intention) has stirred up a lot of emotional responses. Both were closed, since it seems the issue has already been brought privately to Arbcom (as it should have been), but that left a lot of people going, "WTF?" Thus, the announcement here. All of this could have been handled tactfully and gracefully from the start, without making a public scene out of it. But where I'm glad the announcement was made is that they revealed some very disturbing things going on behind the scenes, which is people actively searching out her real identity, and that's something I don't think the community should take lightly. Zaereth (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Total WTF, Zaereth. I don't understand why I/all of us had to endure (suffer through) this saga, but it was for naught. I think making it public was a discreditable act, which showed contempt to dispute opponents and neutrals alike (and was perceived as such by many dispute proponents, as well, I suspect). El_C 17:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So we're all on the same page, the ANI was opened by a concerned editor with the title of "FYI" (IIRC). It was renamed later on, as has been discussed within the thread. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear here: we never actually know for a fact who is behind sock accounts, that is why the policy is written as it is, to make meatpuppeting an equal offense. So it actually doesn't matter who operated those accounts, they were acting as sock/meat puppets and so were blocked. Anonymity is a right on this project Enough already. One of the blocked accounts did appeal to us, and alleged that they were part of a "memorial project" aimed at carrying on Flyer's work. We informed them that that is still considered socking and they dropped it. That fits with the established facts as well as any other explanation. It won't change the way anything works one way or the other, so we all just need to accept that we will never know for a certainty what happened here and move on. For the record, T&S were already brought up to speed on this issue, as much because of the attempted doxxing and suggestions that someone call Flyer's alleged family as for any other reason. What they will or will not do is another thing we all need to accept we won't really know, but I think it is safe to say they also will not get on the phone and start calling people based on doxxing information, that's kind of the opposite of what they are here for. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, although I already know most of that. To be clear myself, nothing I said was meant to reflect on Arbcom's nor Wikipedia's handling of this situation, which I think think is very well done on your parts. I think there are bigger issues underneath --issues which far transcend this board and this particular discussion-- thus that is something the community as a whole needs to address. For me, I don't know much about this computer stuff. Never had a smartphone. Never sent a text. Spend most of my time outdoors or working on whatever project or experiment I happen to be engaged with. For the few minutes a day that I do spend online, I spend them at Wikipedia, because it's the only worthwhile thing I've found to do on the internet. But I'm only here because I feel it's a relatively safe site. I had to go look up "doxxing", and I tend to avoid most sites where things like that go on.


 * Now, I've never had much interaction with Flyer22 over the years. But over the years you get to know people, whether you interact with them or not, and until this year I never knew how deeply I could be affected by the loss of not one, but two people I've never even met, and barely talked to. So please forgive me if I seem a little emotional myself, but this has brought back a lot of hard feelings. Zaereth (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * My comments were intended as a general response to a number of the above comments, not necessarily to you specifically, certainly not the part about doxxing. I need to get outside today myself, it's a glorious sunny summer day here, could be one of the last this nice. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have nothing of real value to add but I must express how distressing this all is. We lost two Wikipedians (Flyer and SlimVirgin) this year, both of whom I mourned in real life as they were part of my wiki-circle of friends. What is most distressing is that in all of the cases listed, the consequence is still very upsetting. That this is even happening is despicable. Regardless, I appreciate ARBCOM's handling of this and their announcement.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OMG I had not heard about SlimVirgin until just now. Ouch. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unfamiliar with Flyer22 and haven't really tried to understand the surrounding dispute, but if Flyer was such a great editor, I don't see anything wrong with a memorial project, especially if done out in the open. I'd love to join a SlimVirgin memorial project to carry on her writing of carefully-researched FA's, or similarly an AaronSw memorial project and so on.  2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

 * Original announcement

Changes to functionary team

 * Original announcement

Motion to standardize Extended Confirmed restrictions

 * Original announcement

MPS1992
I realize that ArbComBlocks are often based on private or off-wiki evidence and therefore not a lot can be publicly stated, but shouldn't there be some sort of motion if this block of an otherwise established editor was indeed made on behalf of the entire committee, and not just one arbitrator acting with their own discretion? The template "ArbCom Block" implies the decision to block was one made by the committee as a whole, and therefore should be accompanied by a public motion (especially considering the fact that indef blocks of this nature are de facto ARBCOM bans). Also please move this post to a more appropriate place upon replying if necessary. 199.8.32.6 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You are correct that an ArbCom block is a decision made by the committee so if that template/log notation is used you can assume it is being done on behalf of the committee. Such blocks are not accompanied by public motions for a number of reasons. One such reason is a desire not to draw widespread attention to something which involves private components (otherwise the discussion would be public or not even within ArbCom's remit). This was certainly an appropriate place to ask this question and I hope this answer was useful. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In this particular case it's fairly obvious as to why they were blocked, so this was more of a question on general procedure. I note that there seems to be precedent for these actions to be accompanied by motions (Soap, Icewhiz, Devil's Advocate, Tarc) and as I noted in my initial post, the underlying factor here is that this was an otherwise established editor in good standing, with only a single block that was overturned by the blocking admin on their record. Additionally, I can't find any instance except for Soap where these types of blocks have been successfully appealed - this fact makes it a de facto ARBCOM ban which IMHO should have a motion. 199.8.32.6 (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Like you, I too am talking general procedure. The difference between the four you named and this is that those four were bans and this is a block. I understand that the difference between an ArbCom block and an ArbCom ban is a thin one. I have made that point myself. However, there is a difference and one way that difference plays out is that bans are announced with votes while blocks are not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They are made by motion, the motions are simply in private. That has multiple benefits: the Arbs can talk freely about private info and our turn-around time is way faster than on-Wiki motions. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Soap was desysopped and banned and Icewhiz and Devil's Advocate's bans were related to recent arbitration cases, that's why there were notices about them. As a general rule you shouldn't assume this page is an exhaustive list of the committee's actions. It's just here for notices that are relevant to the wider community. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion

 * Original announcement

Changes to functionary team (2)

 * Original announcement


 * Thanks for your work as a functionary, Mkdw! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work as an oversighter. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to echo my thanks to for excellent work as a functionary, and also thanks for your previous work as an arbitrator - you were one of the good ones! <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

MJL appointed trainee clerk

 * Original announcement


 * Congrats, MJL! 👍 El_C 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome! :) firefly  ( t · c ) 06:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard! SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!  11:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics closed

 * Original announcement


 * I think I got it in my head that anything-MEK is simply beyond rescue, but (for once) I'm happy to be proven wrong. Exceptional work, arbs! El_C 22:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom attracts flack for its role in resistant controversies but they deserve unalloyed praise for this arbitration. Remedy 3 is a particularly well-targeted outcome. Congratulations. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 04:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why does the remedy numbering go from Remedy #1 to Remedy #3? Was there a proposed Remedy #2 that did not pass? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mikehawk10: That is correct. See here for the final tally of the proposed decision. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you from me too. I really think this case showed the benefits of having a group consider this problem, rather than leaving it entirely to individual admins, and I say that as one of those admins. The remedies passed here aren't something individual admins could handle the fallout from. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, isn't a "topic ban from the MEK" actually a page ban? 199.8.32.6 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not. It's a topic ban meaning that editor cannot edit the page, nor can they edit content about it on another page, nor can they discuss it in a different place - i.e. at RSN. It is broader than a page ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Invitation / Follow-up
Hello,

This is a follow-up to a previous thread and invitation to an upcoming meeting among arbitration committee members, functionaries, administrators, and community members of all projects to discuss the implementation and community ratification or approval of the outlined enforcement pathways for the Universal Code of Conduct. The meeting is scheduled for 7 October 2021 18:00 UTC.

Please see here for further details and to respond. Those unable to attend can participate in other formats.

Let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary to sign up? I will only know on the morning of that day whether I can attend.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that it is so that the link to the meeting isn't publicly accessible to trolls and other miscreants who have become the bane of online meetings. If you've ever been in an online meeting where a serious troll had the access code, you'd probably think this was a good idea. Realistically, if you contact someone with the code at or around the time of the meeting, I'm sure that a user with your reputation of longtime participation wouldn't have too much trouble getting it. Risker (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)  ADDENDUM: Looked again, and it seems the access code will be posted on that landing page an hour before the meeting. Looking more closely, I see that they're trying to hit key demographics, and it will be helpful for them to continue to target certain demographics if they're not seeing a lot of people signing up from them. The number of people participating in an online meeting also helps them to determine the most appropriate platform for use. I know the WMF uses multiple platforms, depending on the anticipated size of the group participating.  Risker (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

 * Original announcement


 * Nice. Good-sized candidate pool. And good candidates. Process seems bright with a cool breeze. I'm bringing back the Seal of Approval, btw! El_C 10:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For easy of linking, the review itself is taking place here: Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2021 CUOS appointments. — xaosflux  Talk 11:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

 * Original announcement


 * Congratulations to all! DanCherek (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats to all our newly-minted functionaries! I'm very pleased with the crop this year :) firefly  ( t · c ) 06:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats fools all! ~TNT (she/her • talk) 06:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I was very impressed with the standard of candidates this year, and I'm glad to see the appointments. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a special thanks to KrakatoaKatie for leading us through as well as Primefac and Bradv for their hard work too. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me echo WTT with my deep appreciation for @KrakatoaKatie's leadership not only this year but for several years and a more regular sized appreciation for the work Primefac and Bradv did with logistics. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome, and also thanks to the appointments committee. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations everyone!  Java Hurricane  11:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats to all. Now, about my outstanding CU requests....  Cabayi (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just updated the list of clerks, a third of the corps have moved on. I feel I should make an appeal reminding the CUs, existing & new, "we have particular need of applicants who are: ... Interested in mentoring editors who wish to become SPI clerks." Cabayi (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as moving on - I'm not going to stick my feet on the desk and stop clerking. Indeed, I'd still like to earn my wings properly and get better at advanced clerking tasks - if anyone sees a case that needs manual merging and feels like walking me through the process, I'd be grateful. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will also note that General Notability has been doing a lot of mentoring of SPI clerks when he was an SPI clerk and one of the many reasons I'm excited about him as a CU was to be able to continue doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Congratulations everyone! Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In the immortal words of Seaman Beaumont: (look of sheer terror as he grabs his headphones) "What do I do???" -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats everyone! Pahunkat (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to all the new appointees! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering to serve, and congrats to all! Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, new appointees! Now get the hell outa here, go make me some pastrami pizzas or somethin'. El_C 17:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very pleased with this group and look forward to working with all of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats to the new appointees, and thanks to the arbs who took the lead on this. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to everyone appointed! --Ferien (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to everbody. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Blue">Maniik</b> 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 04:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A heartfelt thanks to all of the new functionaries! Jip Orlando (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability promoted to full clerk

 * Original announcement


 * Woof woof! You know what I'm about. Did I mention that I'm fluent in Scooby-Doo? Paging Val for extra spam! El_C 13:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What, now I'm the spam caterer? Call Val, she's always happy to bring spam? —valereee (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats! :) firefly  ( t · c ) 13:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I resemble this remark. CANVASSED here by Peemail. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 13:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are short one wooF, but that's okay, your Comandante's got you covered. El_C 13:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There. That's the Great Seal of England. Don't lose it. Without the Seal, there's no more England, and we'll all have to pack up and go back to Normandy. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! — curious Golden  (call me maybe) 13:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats! :) Giraffer (talk·contribs) 16:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the new hat. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Congrats! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well-deserved, congratulations GN! --   LuK3      (Talk)   13:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats. Well deserved promotion. Best, — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 17:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The subject of this promotion may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of this promotion by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the promotion and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the promotion is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Further, anyone crazy enough to want this position should never be in this position. Hummf. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Great point. I !vote we merge @GeneralNotability and other military editors into a combined account and then, following WP:NOSHARING, block them. Jokingly, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Motion seconded, any opposed? No opposition registered. Consensus achieved. Closing, archiving, merging and blocking. I love how efficient things are around here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC).
 * I think you acted on a hunch. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bwahahahah! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats, GN! —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Eostrix Blocked

 * Original announcement
 * Request for Adminship suspended


 * Yikes. Thanks, ArbCom and/or CU team, for catching that in time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That was... unexpected. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What!? Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 01:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate, but required. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz nearly became an admin? Wow. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * !!! Twist of the year, for sure. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel very stupid supporting him. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 01:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t please, that was a real deep cover. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am shocked and surprised. Thanks to the people who detected this. I thought that Eostrix was a good candidate and said so at length. I am also deeply disappointed. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I realize this is fairly shocking. I can only assure you all that there is ample evidence, which we obviously cannot share as it is both private and would only provide Icewhiz with more information as to how we were able to make this determination. Our investigation was fairly involved, far beyond a usual checkuser investigation, and we did consult with some members of the CU team for second opinions before acting. This was a very determined, carefully planned attempt to fool the community, and it nearly succeeded, probably would have if it weren't for one particular committee member who doggedly pursued this for quite some time, although it obviously acquired a sense of urgency when the account ran for adminship. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Beeblebrox Forgive me if this is too private for public discussion, but is there a need to contact T&S? NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 01:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The T&S team has been alerted by the Committee. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Three members of the CU team evaluated the evidence and presented their thoughts. Of these, none were willing to give it a "confirmed" ruling, and two of the three emphasized that any potential block would have to be based on behaviour. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  03:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * [This attempt to fool the community] nearly succeeded, probably would have if it weren't for one particular committee member who doggedly pursued this for quite some time, although it obviously acquired a sense of urgency when the account ran for adminship. I gather from this that some sockpuppetry evidence existed before the RfA, and was discussed privately within ArbCom for quite some time without being made public at SPI or elsewhere. It is proper for ArbCom to handle issues that cannot be described publicly, but I am wondering whether there is a "dark SPI" running in the background.
 * I suppose there is no way to show that the handling of the Eostrix case was justified without spilling much evidence. However I can ask the following question: how many cases of sockpuppetry based on private evidence, with a level of proof similar to pre-RfA Eostrix, are currently in the hands of ArbCom or its members, and how many are there typically at any given point in time? (An approximate number will suffice if the answer is above 5 or so). Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the comments that have been expressed above your message, I do not think it is realistic to expect the committee to say more than what they have chosen to say. I'm actually glad to see that the committee values privacy so highly, it prevents rumors from circulating. Once they are sure of the evidence, they act. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As a general note, I'd like to point out that there was no fault on the part of the nominators or the community. Without private evidence, there is just no way the community could have known. I very much appreciate that HJ Mitchell and GirthSummit put forth their talent as nominators. Neither the nominators or the community should beat themselves up for supporting. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 on that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 from me as well. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * While sad and shocking, I do have to commend ArbCom on acting as soon as they could. -- lomrjyo  🐱(✉ • 📝) 01:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the saddest aspect is that this incident is likely to lead to increased skepticism and heightened scrutiny at RfA, which is aleady a grueling process. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well said. I wish I had more to offer in response, besides to point out the ongoing brainstorming portion of WP:RFA2021. --BDD (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this tell us that our current scrutiny perhaps focuses on the wrong things? —Kusma (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is making me feel like my crazy suspicions aren't so crazy. Which is very sad. I'd really rather just be kind of crazy. —valereee (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And honestly, this right here is why working in SPI and the like gets downright exhausting: constantly wondering "is this new user too familiar with things? could this be (sockmaster) disguising themselves? am I just being paranoid/nuts?" GeneralNotability (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is crazy...gives me Archtransit vibes, but I'd never thought we'd nip it in the bud while the RFA was still going on!  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I voted support for both Archtransit and Eostrix, and now seriously doubt my judgement ... -- Euryalus (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am guessing this is tongue in cheek @Euryalus. But more seriously I do not think people should be analyzing every RfA candidate through the lens of "is this person an abusive sockmaster?" That is not the way to a healthier community in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is tongue in cheek. Fwiw Archtransit was in 2008 and of course Eostrix is today, so two similar cases in 13 years is not a bad record for en-WP. Hundreds of perfectly good RfA candidates have gone through over that time. So indeed, people should not let these two instances obstruct their usual approach to RfA . -- Euryalus (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, this case reminds me more of Ecoleetage/Pastor Theo (also from nearly 13 years back; never thought I'd feel old on Wikipedia). Kurtis (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right that this case is more like PT. It's just that Archtransit happened first, so it imprinted more deeply into my memory...I totally forgot about the PT affair until people mentioned it later. All that stuff was so long ago that a lot of those memories are dormant to me until I actually see the name again.  bibliomaniac 1  5  14:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a shocker and I hadn't even cast a vote yet. I'm glad this came out before the RFA was closed successfully. I am used to reading about this kind of situation occurring 15 years ago but a sockpuppet getting this close to adminship in 2021 is a big surprise. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that this was not a unanimous decision. I opposed this motion as I don't believe that the evidence presented by my colleagues meets the burden of proof required to overcome the possibility of irrevocably destroying an innocent editor's wiki-career. I'm wary of revealing too much as I don't want to risk compromising Eostrix's ability to appeal, but in my estimation neither the technical nor behavioural evidence presented here would ordinarily be sufficient to justify a checkuser block. Furthermore, to believe that Eostrix is Icewhiz is to believe that Icewhiz is capable of behaving himself for over two years – editing only uncontroversial articles, not getting in personalized disputes with other users, not harassing, threatening, or doxxing his enemies. But Eostrix's edits demonstrate none of the attributes or interests usually shown by Icewhiz socks, and therefore I consider this connection dubious. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  03:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ...compromising Eostrix's ability to appeal ? I would have thought, that you of all people, would be fully aware that there is no right of appeal to a desysoping. Just sayin' . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm just wondering (and I know that this question maybe can't be answered, which is ok) but why wasn't the vote count posted? Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 03:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no standard rules on when we announce the vote counts. I'm generally in favour of listing them whenever possible, but in some situations, particularly sensitive ones, it makes more sense to leave them off. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  03:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bradv, FWIW, I worked with Icewhiz on multiple occasions including on contentious articles and found them reasonable and easy to deal with. Icewhiz is absolutely capable of behaving. —valereee (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Valereee I thought that at a point too, but his apparent attempt to manipulate me into opening a CCI on one of his "foes" last year convinced me that any of it is long gone. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 04:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Valereee's point is more that Eostrix's lack of interpersonal disputes and other negative behavior is not necessarily a strong indicator that Eostrix is not Icewhiz. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just realized that there was basically no point to my comment, since I didn't mean to comment on Eostrix or anything, it was just an observation. I'll just strike it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 04:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PMC, yes, that was exactly what I intended, thanks! —valereee (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is the aspect that surprises me the most, that Icewhiz could edit as productively and responsibly as Eostrix but chose not to in the past. I understand there is still some question about this identification but it I think many of our project's general conclusions about editor misconduct is that leopards don't change their spots and here, one did. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe "wolf in sheep's clothing" is a more apt animal metaphor in this case? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I realise that you've reached your conclusion based on information you can't talk about publicy, but to echo others on this one point: Icewhiz was a productive and well-liked editor before he went off the rails following the Holocaust in Poland case. I've never had any doubt that he would be capable of genuine clean start. But of course, given his WMF ban and the egregious conduct that led to it, that option is not open to him. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will note that I share Bradv's concerns about the strength of the evidence and also did not support this motion. Part of this is because, as he notes in a reply elsewhere, our independent secondary CU assessments all sounded notes of caution and part of this is because a lot of the work here seems to be tied up in very Icewhiz specific analysis. That said I do respect that the overwhelming majority of ArbCom feel the evidence is strong and feel good about this decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I deeply appreciate Barkeep's and Brad's role in expressing their misgivings and their institutional role in holding us accountable, but let me go on record to say that I am one of those arbs who feel the evidence is strong (very very strong) and feel good about this decision. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 04:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like if it is actually Icewhiz, they will probably not bother to appeal, since the mere indication of a possibility that they are an Icewhiz sock would ensure that, even if they come back and succeed at RFA, anything they do in the ARBPIA topic area would attract scrutiny, which if this is Icewhiz would almost certainly defeat the purpose of running such a bizarre sleeper strategy. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is Icewhiz and why are they blocked? User:Icewhiz doesn't say. Banedon (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Banedon Icewhiz is globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation due to the kind of severe behavior that gets one globally banned. Real harm was caused to real people by Icewhiz and I 100% believe Icewhiz has no place on enwiki or any other Wikimedia related project. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy crap. What's really weird is I was working on the Icewhiz SPI earlier today and playing with https://masz.wmcloud.org/.  Eostrix kept popping up as a possible Icewhiz sock in the masz output.  I kept saying to myself, "That's stupid.  Just another example of how these kinds of analysis are BS".  Hmmm.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith: I wouldn't put much confidence in that tool. Icewhiz/Eostrix show a 0.48 connection, which is solidly in the realm of unlikely. If you look at your own results, for instance, you'll see 19 accounts with a score above 0.86. Do you have 19 socks? – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. The first experiment I tried with the tool was running myself.  But, you gotta admit, it was right on this one.  Or at any rate, came up with a result consistent with ArbCom's finding.  I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my point is that the tool isn't right on this one. Or perhaps, that it is right and there's about a 48% chance that these accounts are operated by the same person. Either way, the data produced is quite useless and no one should ever be using it as evidence for a block in place of actual behavioural analysis. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  04:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, I don't know enough about the tool to have formed an opinion. I descriptions I've read only give the vaguest details of how it operates.  I am a scientist at heart.  I want to see data.  All I have now is one observation that makes me say, "Hmmm, that's interesting".  Don't worry, I'm not blocking anybody based on what the tool says.  But I'm also not discarding it as "quite useless" until I know more. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Bradv, that the tool did not give anything but a "huh, that's interesting" point of view. The similarity at 0.48 is small, especially since Eostrix had such a high level of automated edits. But, equally, it is interesting that no one else appeared higher than Icewhiz for Eostrix. I'm sure there is a potential tool there, and while I'm uncomfortable with the bigger picture which needs some thought - in this particular case, the link did not influence my opinion.<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm letting you know that Icewhiz has more likely sock puppet accounts. I keep a record of them and will let you know about them when the time is right and evidences are solid. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Known sockmaster has multiple socks: More at 11." --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He's been caught with another sock, bringing the total to 'seven'. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why Eostrix and Geshem Bracha are "arbcom blocked" while Hippeus, 11Fox11 and Astral Leap are CU blocked? Just that they were never voted on and blocked by the individual arb as CU? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, basically. As ArbComBlock indicates, the template is placed when a block is issued as a Committee action, usually the result of a case or motion. Logically, that does only apply to accounts for which the Committee explicitly decided as a body to block them. I think that's also why the template says "this account", not "this editor". Regards So  Why  07:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I—oh my god. that's—quite the plot twist. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope it goes without saying that I had no idea about these concerns when Eostrix approached me about running for RfA. I have not been involved in this investigation, and while I'm aware of who Icewhiz in general terms, I have no personal experience of them or any of their socks, so I have no view on the conclusion of the investigation. However, I thank the committee for their vigilance, and for the speed and sensitivity with which they have handled this situation. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  05:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think anybody here blames you at the slightest. This was a good nomination, seemingly a good candidate with a clean record. Please keep looking for and nominating good candidates.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I can see no way how you could have seen this when vetting a seemingly good editor for RfA. I really hope it won't deter you from making more nominations in the future. Regards So  Why  07:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit - That person (Icewhiz) is an outstanding manipulator/fabricator and they are intelligent at the same time. Please do not feel bad for being deceived by them. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sincere thanks to those who worked on this investigation. I interacted a lot with Icewhiz when he was involved in ARBPIA. His almost unique combination of deep knowledge and total lack of integrity made him an extremely dangerous editor. I'm not at all surprised that he had the patience and sweet-talk ability to become an administrator. If Eostrix had been successful, his status as "uninvolved" in his real areas of interest would have severely damaged those areas. Probably Eostrix is not the only sock he has on that track; please be vigilant. Zerotalk 05:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who wasn't super active here during Icewhiz's editing tenure, is there something particularly bad about Icewhiz controlling this sock as opposed to any other LTA? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Barkeep49's comment above and Zero0000's comment just above yours. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that Icewhiz is one of our worst harassers, right up there with GRP and Grawp. All three have caused severe damage in their victims' real lives.  Java Hurricane  06:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @JavaHurricane For those of us with less than perfect memories, who are GRP and Grawp? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Roy, both have LTA pages – Long-term_abuse/Projects and Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith: Long-term abuse/Projects and Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis, respectively. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just thought I'd weigh in here, as I have a bit of a unique perspective. Firstly, the support for this motion was not unanimous as has in no uncertain terms pointed out, but it had the majority of full committee support, and shouldn't be re-litigated here where not all the evidence is available. Now to my unique perspective - I make no secret that I dislike the "whack-a-mole" style of sock hunting, I do believe in an open encyclopedia and that chasing after many banned users is not worth our time. To be clear, this is no sleight on the checkuser team, or those who work at SPI, as I believe you are all excellent editors  It is in that spirit that I wrote User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return, the pragmatic approach of live and let live. The encyclopedia gets a productive editor, the community can stop chasing, win-win. There are, however, editors who need to be shown the door and that door should not be revolving. I was around and involved during the Icewhiz case but it was the behaviour that came after that was beyond the pale. I was painfully aware that Icewhiz would quite happily act very differently on different accounts, and on one particular off-wiki account, I saw some dreadful harassment. To those who supported the RfA in good faith - you did nothing wrong - nor is your judgement in question. This was a tough decision, but I firmly believe it is the right one. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 06:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse my irony in commenting to say this, but let's not platform this too much more - what more is there to say? I don't think they deserve any more of our time ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 07:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to ArbCom for their intervention here, and I agree with others that any potential result at the RfA really shouldn't be seen as the voters fault. ArbCom dealt with private evidence of socking as they do, and it just so happened that the candidate ran for adminship in the middle of it. Personally, I think it seems as if the system is working well. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 08:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is frightening. This account was the subject of a snowball RfA. Now we know that the puppetmaster was Icewhiz, whose work focused on advancing a tendentious agenda in articles in two topic areas under active arbitration (WP:APL and WP:PIA). It it therefore likely that the puppetmaster’s reason for a sudden interest in owls in his new account was as a cover to advance his ideology at WP:AE once accepted as an admin. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC) moved from Special:Diff/1050854322. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just read Bradv's comment above ...to believe that Eostrix is Icewhiz is to believe that Icewhiz is capable of behaving himself for over two years. I had the pleasure of working with Icewhiz for most of his two year history - he is intelligent and polished, but also devious, dangerous and obsessed. He would have revelled in this deceit. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Mahn! This is quite the plot twist!  Princess of Ara  08:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vigilance. Icewhiz caused much damage to Wikipedia and harmed numerous editors, while scaring away others from editing with his aggressive tactics and racism. I shudder at the thought of him gaining admin tools.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Worm. Re 'I dislike the "whack-a-mole" style of sock hunting.' Of course, that pursuit can be read as  nasty. But consider that long term I/P editors have had to quietly put up with, assuming agf, 560  socks, often tagteaming, as they endeavour to build articles constructively. Most are apparent from the word go, etc. I can think of a dozen solid  and constructive editors hounded or banned from the area, after a sock made an AE/ANI mountain out of a picayune molehill. In that area we have 5 known (reported in RS newspapers) declared intents to organize and influence I/P editing so that it will favour one national actor in the conflict. So the socking is not aleatory, random, a matter of some guys out there acting independently to alter articles they personally dislike. Sock-hunting is almost mandatory for the place to remain minimally workable.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , I understand the need for sock hunting, especially in LTA and tag-teaming, and this is probably not the best place for the discussion, certainly happy to continue at my talk page or yours. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What? Is going on? A sockpuppet of Icewhiz? Are you sure Eostrix isn't just sharing an IP address? What did Icewhiz even do that made him so terrible? If it is truly terrible, it should go on the long-term abuse noticeboard. And you closed a 99% RfA as unsuccessful! Chicdat (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Icewhiz is a ArbCom-banned and later WMF-banned user. For more info, see Barkeep's comment above, or the ArbCom ban discussion. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 10:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep said: Icewhiz is globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation due to the kind of severe behavior that gets one globally banned. What, if I may ask, is that severe behavior, in Icewhiz's case? Chicdat (talk • contribs) 10:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Off-wiki harassement of multiple Wikipedians. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 10:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * -- see this arbcom noticeboard message. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad we caught him early. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  10:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * [EC] As an editor in the ARBPIA topic area, I interacted with Icewhiz and played a part, though perhaps not significant, in his being banned. Hippeus, one of the sockpuppets banned today, raised this AE request about me on 25 September, which concerned talkpage comments stretching back some years. As regards deviousness, Hippeus/Icewhiz first shredded the talkpage comments using what look like bogus justifications, so that the context of my comments could not easily be seen, then presented a highly skewed account of them at AE. Geshem Bracha and 11Fox11, two other Icewhiz sockpuppets banned today, were then used to make statements in support of the request in the Discussion section. One result of the request was that Nableezy was given a caution for commenting about "garbage accusations" and "socks of banned users who regularly return to spare with their former adversaries." In the light of the latest sockpuppet investigations and also of one of those accounts having subsequently raised a request against Nableezy himself, I think that it's worth thinking again about the justifiability of what Nableezy wrote. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  10:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, ZScarpia, my caution was much more geared toward Nableezy's multiple subpar follow ups than that original comment, per se. I don't think I knew any of those Iced Cream users prior to that request at AE (possibly). In fact, I'm not sure I ever encountered you, at least prior to my great insights on Zero's talk page (diff). Anyway, I don't think this is place to relitigate that AE complaint. El_C 12:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As a description of what I was trying to do, the word 'relitigate' is a poor choice. I appreciate that, in areas such as ARBPIA, admins are caught between deeply entrenched sides. However, I think that they should have their eyes open to the various ways that Wikipedia is manipulated to favour particular narratives. Something to think about is that we may have just avoided a situation where sockpuppets of a banned user raise administrative requests, then comment on them in the discussion, then arbritrate on them in the result section (or perhaps that is already happening, we have no way of knowing!). <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  13:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're asking too much, ZScarpia. Short of omniscience on the part of the, what, less than 20 admins who frequent AE, what do you expect to happen, in practice? An emphasis on a vague stance like that, if anything, might just reduce the number of AE admins even further due to a damn-if-you-do, no-good-deed, etc. But, more specifically, my point to Nableezy wasn't against that description per se. (of which I had no knowledge). Rather, it was about them saying it just declaratively, without any accompanying substance or evidence (even most basically, about whom it concerned). And, I'd have left it at that had it not been for the multiple subpar responses that followed on their part. El_C 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Few thoughts from me (for those who don't know, I was - still am - one of the main targets of Icewhiz harassment on and off-wiki, and I occasionally spot and report some of his socks when they stumble upon "our" old battle playgrounds):
 * Wow. Eostrix was not on my radar. But as can be seen from Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz/Archive, it is clear he pursued the strategy of "going legit" often. This is probably a side-effect of 500/30 protection, which he needed to do anything serious in some of his favorite TAs anyway. I guess he figured out that if he goes to that much trouble anyway, making a few hundred "innocent and helpful" edits over a few months, why not double up on them and try to go get an admin sock too? And yes, this also illustrates a flow in the RfA system related to what I raised in the recent RfC here. Old hands are often too controversial to pass, so we increasingly look for "new, perfect editors". This can and obviously is gamed, but at the same time, it's not like we have a good solution. People who endorsed this candidature were just duped by a master, wiki-savvy manipulator. Praise goes to the vigilant few who caught this in the proverbial nick of time. What can we learn from this? IMHO that Wikipedia's enemies are becoming increasingly "weaponized" and sadly, we need to more vigilant. For example, I'd endorse CU on every RfA candidate, and frankly, I'd also endorse a requirement for them to disclose their real life identity either to ArbCom or Trust&Safety. This was TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT, folks - particularly when we consider various other recent wiki-scandals such as the Chinese chapter takover/fight, etc.
 * While 4 of the 5 blocked accounts are pretty much unknown to me, one, Astral Leap, has. I called it a likely Icewhiz sock long ago. I presented behavioral analysis here but at that time it was to all appearances ignored. I do wonder if the Committee was aware of my analysis or did it fall into the cracks. If so, I think we need a new system to "record" concerns/evidence/etc. I'll also add that as someone who spent many hours - perhaps 10+ collecting and submitting behavioral evidence about Icewhiz socks to SPI/ArbCom, I am quite dispirited that almost always the outcome is a "black hole". While some (come to think, almost all...) of the accounts I report I eventually blocked, I don't recall that I was ever told even "thank you", much less "your evidence was helpful", and of course, I received zero suggestions on how to improve my evidence, if it was lacking. I still don't know if my occasional analysis to SPI/Icewhiz are appreciated or seen as a total waste of time and ignored without being read. From my perspective, this is not an efficient use of community resources (in this case, non-admin inputs). LTAs like Icewhiz are an obvious threat to the community, but at least some tools we have access to in theory (i.e knowledgable editors like me) are not treated properly. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Our tools and available horsepower for dealing with this sort of threat are very weak. Requiring a CU on every RFA might help, as would identifying to T&S (please don't go the route of ArbCom with that; they are decidedly abusive as is, and have had significant leaks in the past). However, there would be even fewer RFA candidates, and we're already at historic lows. The tighter we squeeze, the more sand slips through our fingers. Sadly, we cannot catch everyone. The route ahead likely isn't to beef up efforts to catch every existing and future LTA that has become an admin, but figure out ways to prevent or at least minimize such an account from causing damage. Otherwise, in some sense, Icewhiz 'wins' by virtue of throttling RFA even more than it already is. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Hammersoft - It often isn't as simple as just "running a cu". This case, for instance required many hours between many people, lots of discussion - and we still don't all agree from the sound of things above. Are there slam-dunk cases? Sure. Are there likely to be slam-dunk cases when someone's put the effort in to get to a passing RFA, nominated by functionaries, and supported by many checkusers (including myself)? Probably not, at least in my opinion. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!  11:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a requirement to provide real names would work, because (1) neither ArbCom nor T&S has the facility to check them, (2) a real name would mean little unless it is a public figure (what's the use of knowing that someone is called "Joe Blow"?), (3) real people can make socks too. Arbcom should consider whether having a routine CU requirement for RfA candidates is a good idea. Zerotalk 12:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Likewise, don't think that would work. Would likely just run off people like me who don't think that essentially outing their identities to ARBCOM is a great idea, and it's too easy to David Ashley Parker from Powder Springs something like that anyway. Hog Farm Talk 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, ArbCom is out, but T&S seems trusted? If they don't have the capacity to check on them - create it. WMF has budget and so on. Use it for something that helps the community (since we obviously have too much money as we are able to donate it to projects not directly related to Wikimedia). Also, another idea to brainstorm: minimum tenure required before RfA: 5 years. I don't think we are in dire needs of fast-tracking admins; I'd rather have a few more admins but be able to trust them. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Holy shit! What da... jp×g 12:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Geshem Bracha and 11Fox11 were Icewhiz socks? I'm totally astonished. (I'm not at all astonished, in reality.) Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope T&S get law enforcement involved. I've been told off-wiki about some of the abuse Icewhiz dished out to people, and recently looked at this report (and the related Panorama episode). Some people think it's okay to dish out sick and threatening abuse, that ought to have got at least a police caution in the pre-internet world, but now get the police shrugging and saying they can't do anything about it. The Murder of Hannah Foster happened on what was my regular route to the pub for ten years previously. If Esotrix isn't Icewhiz, he needs to appeal now. If he is, my thanks go to Arbcom for catching it. For anyone who supported the RfA (like me), don't worry about it. I wrote in to Jim'll Fix It aged ten, as did thousands of other children. You live and learn. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't going to be an appeal. An editor being gone from Wikipedia during their RFA is a very unusual thing. It has happened (medical issues usually), but it is quite rare. The RFA is a time of their choosing. At this point, we're ~12 hours past the block being applied. If there were going to be an appeal, we would have heard something already. The silence is deafening. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have ArbCom said they haven't appealed yet? Perhaps, no one has asked them yet. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We've received no appeal. But it's been less than 12 hours. If Eostrix is considering an appeal it might take days for him to put it together. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I see suggestions of CUing RfA candidates and requiring identification, and on Discord there has been discussion of random CUs of advanced perm-holders. These suggestions are well-intentioned, but frankly, I do not think these will help. They're in the same category as several airport security measures (particularly thinking of "take off your shoes at security"): they would prevent the exact same tactic from working again, but the "bad guys" are just going to try a different tactic next time and it'll just inconvenience everyone else. I also note that some of our more advanced LTAs and sockpuppeteers already know how to evade CU, so I would expect this to actually be a net negative from the false sense of security we'd get from a "clean" CU result. I can't speak as much to identification, but I'm skeptical of how useful it is (considering that the Foundation accepts pseudonymous signatures on non-public information agreements). Assuming the majority of ArbCom is correct that Eostrix == Icewhiz (I haven't seen the data involved, so I am not making a judgment there), we've had one LTA manage to keep up a facade long enough to make a nearly-successful run at adminship in recent memory. One. Any changes we make need to be made thoughtfully and with clear heads, not as a knee-jerk reaction to an emotional incident. We should remain vigilant, of course, but we cannot act hastily due to fear and paranoia. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just one note. There is one that we know of. Not necessarily just one. I think the people who have found themselves on the receiving end of Icewhiz's on and off-wiki, ummmm, shenanigans find just how close he became to becoming an "uninvolved admin" in these topic areas more than just a little concerning. And yeah, I would like some sort of safeguard against that. I had to give my finger prints so I could stop taking my shoes off at the airport. Seemed like an ok deal to me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't an audit show that TSA's procedures were basically entirely ineffective? Seems like security theatre, esp in light of what Maxim wrote here ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the only security we have is closing an unlocked door, you would just say they can open it anyway, just leave it wide open? If the only security we had is locking the door, you'd say they can pick it anyway, just leave it unlocked? If the tools we have are not sufficient then we should be looking for better tools. Not saying eff it nothing works just leave it how it is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Things do work: proper targeted investigations, like the one seen here. What we shouldn't do is implement indiscriminate invasive measures to 'help' prevent extremely rare cases, especially when those measures don't even help. See: politician's fallacy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is much easier to take that position not having been on the receiving end here, and the comfort in that he was blocked two days before being promoted to admin is tempered by holy crap he was two days from being promoted to admin. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This. Regardless of the systems we have in place, whatever they may be, there will always be people who try to abuse and circumvent them. But they worked here: Eostrix was under investigation before and during the RfA, and action was taking to prevent him becoming a sysop – he wasn't only detected as an Icewhiz sock halfway though. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 13:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would strenuously oppose requiring identification for simple adminship (it's far too much and we need a lot of admins; having many admins reduces the impact of any possible shenanigans anyway.) But I do think that having someone at least glance at the CU results for an admin candidate to see if there's any glaring red flags is reasonable. Yes, it has some slight privacy implications, but to my understanding CUs are already permitted to check results as they wish and are strictly bound to not reveal them; the privacy impact is slight, affects a relatively small subset of users, and is a reasonable trade-off for requesting advanced permissions (whereas "completely reveal your real life identity" simply for adminship is absolutely not.) I'm generally in support of privacy, but the amount of stuff a CU sees is something that you flatly reveal to any website you visit; as long as it's kept strictly confidential among CUs themeslves, it is not a huge tradeoff. --Aquillion (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Break
I have had some off-wiki communication from Eostrix, who denies flat out that he is Icewhiz, who he calls a "despicable person". However, he is stuck on what to write as an appeal, as he has enough experience of SPI cases to know that simply saying "I'm not Icewhiz" won't work and hasn't got a clue how to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of Arbcom.

Eostrix, the only way to appeal is to email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org and give as much information as you possibly can. I can't help you. It has been further suggested that it may be possible to appeal to. I'm not sure that'll be successful, but just putting this out there as a further option. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * (Just thinking out loud) If arbs and CUs weren't all sure that the evidence is conclusive, perhaps you could have just let things go on and see what the editor does with the admin tools? Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Therein lies a problem. We could see what the editor does with the admin tools, but at this point I cannot see how that individual would attempt to use admin powers in Israel-Palestine or Antisemitism in Poland arb enforcement. It would be the equivalent of wiki-suicide, even for a completely innocent user. A smart puppetmaster would also know this and avoid those areas like the plague (at least for enough time so as to build credibility, and that may be a while). If they are prepared for a long con, as ArbCom concluded, then this wouldn’t actually resolve the issue. The other problem is that Icewhiz is blocked by the WMF (for off-wiki shenanigans f I understand correctly), so if the evidence meets the (implicit) burden of proof for sockpuppetry, then ArbCom’s hands are tied. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Some things an admin can do (i.e. deleting pages or blocking users) can easily be undone. The loss of confidence and goodwill these actions can cause is much harder to undo.  Admins also have the ability to see deleted (but not supressed) material; this leakage of information can never be undone.  For somebody with a long-term agenda and the patience to run a multi-year campaign, it's not hard to imagine that gaining access to a particular deleted edit might be their goal.  As far as I know, viewing deleted material isn't even logged anywhere unless it's actually undeleted (maybe it should be?) so this would be undetectable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just about the tools. Editors are encouraged to seek help from admins. For example, we recommend that in cases of off-wiki harassment, "A better option may be to directly email an administrator you trust, via the link on their user page. This ensures greater discretion." Above, we're told that "Icewhiz is one of our worst harassers, right up there with GRP and Grawp. All three have caused severe damage in their victims' real lives." Imagine victims unwittingly sending their email addresses and concerns to Icewhiz. NebY (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's an odd dissonance with the 'personalities.' Take for example 11Fox11's amateurish attempt to weaponize AE and contrast that with Eostrix' long, tempered course. Granted, once '11Fox11' realized the tide was decisively against them, they quickly withdrew their AE complaint. Possibly, it's just a gap of knowledge about AE and I'm reading too much into it. Still, eerie. Because on the one hand, we got said long view by Eostrix, and on the other, we have 11Fox11's I am writing up the AE report beginning 5 minutes from now — which is a major self-own. El_C 14:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing eerie, surely, in theory about the possibility of a single person creating two different profiles, one for ground warfare in controversial articles, all aggro, and another groomed with singular concentration to put across a profile of equanimity gauged to win votes in an eventual bid for adminship. I say this having no opinion on the present editor's relation to Icewhiz. In any police duet, roles can be changed according to which of the two will play one part in a 'good cop/bad cop' grilling. There's a whole literature on how people project different identities according to the contexts they separately frequent. Urbane men have killed their wives. Impossible mothers can be viewed as marvelous company in adult social groups etc.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And, as I mentioned above, Jimmy Savile did an extraordinary amount of charity work, was praised by the Prime Minister, had long-running TV and radio shows, and was knighted, which is about as high as award as you can get in British society without being in the aristocracy. Then look what happened.... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For you Americans out there of a certain age, like me, grew up watching The Cosby Show. You may have heard a choir sing I Believe I Can Fly at a graduation ceremony. And look where we are now. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I will note, now that I look at it, Eostrix's XTools shows pretty mechanical behaviour (userspace: 2,090 edits to CSD log, next most edited is just 54; projectspace: 1,339 to UAA and 140 to AIV, then no other projectspace pages with more than 100). Very little major activity outside these few areas, which admittedly does seem strange for two years tenure. Though it does make sense if the sole purpose of the account, since creation, was to build towards adminship. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the personality dissonance would be more confusing if Eostrix had been involved in I/P editing or dramaboard participation: keeping consistently cool in such a situation would be very difficult, I imagine. Keeping a totally clean account, especially while controlling other more openly tendentious accounts, seems doable. signed,Rosguill talk 15:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, the original account, was invariably cool in the I/P topic area. I dont think he was ever actually sanctioned once under ARBPIA for that matter. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I was pointing to, Nishidani. What I tried to highlight was the contrast between how poorly thought out 11Fox11's crude attempt was and the near-flawless sophistication of the Eostrix execution. And then we also have Astral Leap, somehow, who acted just plain unhinged at times. So, it is eerie to me. But maybe I'm just emoting. I dunno. El_C 15:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In one of the discussions it was strongly pointed out as likely that Icewhiz does lend his sockpuppets to some trusted users that are working with him together. I believe one sockpuppet account changed back and forth from poor grammar to quite advanced English during its edits.There were also cases where users with problematic behaviour in Polish area topics, with poor English skills created edits or whole articles suddenly in quite good English with "Icewhiz style" content(ie. bashing Poland, showing it as equal to Nazi Germany etc)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that probably answers that, then, MyMoloboaccount. In that case, those individuals are likely to have some tactical agency, which would explain that misstep. El_C 15:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What MyMoloboaccount pointed out re Icewhiz is well known in the IP area. There is one eminently respectable long term editor whose grasp of English varies dramatically from inept to flawless depending on context. No names. One lives with it. There is no reason to suspect, in that case, socking, though copy-and-past meatpuppetry might come to mind as a possibility. But then again. I manage to do both myself, depending on time of day and drinking rituals. The bother is minimal and one learns to live with it.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, RE: There is one eminently respectable long term editor whose grasp of English varies dramatically from inept to flawless depending on context — I'm not eminently respectable! El_C 17:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe Nishidani is referring to a well known editor in the I/P space, whose language shifts between B-minus-high-school-level-English-as-a-second-language, and flawless-native-speaker. I have wondered for a long time about that particular editor, but have not acted on those suspicions. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Zero point bringing this up here, probably negative point, @nish and once. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to editors above - Icewhiz is not the only person regularly socking in Israel-Palestine and Antisemitism in Poland areas. These very few individuals often work collectively but sometimes independently from each other. I believe (based on my own, no technical instruments reaserch) that few accounts suspected of being or blocked earlier as Icewhiz ( I’m talking about those before the most recent block ) belong actually to his partners. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Authors create different characters, actors play different roles. Maybe think of 11Fox11 as a Falstaff to Eostrix's Malvolio, or Ted to Neo. NebY (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * NebY, I think it's less about whatever character acting of each account so much as how effective each is in achieving desired outcomes. El_C 15:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC) — Never mind, as mentioned, MyMoloboaccount's explanation above probably answers this. El_C 15:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well weren't they effective? 11Fox11 was used to get one user topic banned and agitated for others and stoked a handful of edit-wars. Hippeus got a logged warning against another long term Icewhiz target as well as an exceedingly wide topic ban imposed on another. There a couple of things that make me think that Eostrix is indeed Icewhiz ( and some obsessive use of parentheses), but honestly havent spent a ton of time looking. But the idea that each sock was not effective to me is inaccurate. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying those accounts were ineffective (or effective), though in a deeper sense they are. As I've told multiple Icewhiz socks: ultimately, he's damaging his own POV position. A POV position which actually largely mirrors my own POV — at APL, that is, at ARBPIA my view is more nuanced. About ARBPIA, the overwhelming majority of the Icewhiz socks I've encountered were APL SPAs rather than ARBPIA ones (though there is overlap), but again, MyMoloboaccount's answer might account for this recent influx. El_C 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously I haven't seen the evidence and can't come to a conclusion but I took a spin through contribs and this edit, to take one example, is pretty damning in my view. There are very few people who would make that edit (and I'm one of them). Levivich 16:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Very few people'? That diff points to a sensible revert, and it is irrelevant whether Icewhiz or whoever did it. There is nothing POV about it, but a sane summary of the facts. Many socks make good edits at times.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it more speaks to the confidence in subject matter knowledge and wikipedia chops it takes to step in on such a sensitive, niche topic and make an NPOV correction. Many people who have the writing and research skills necessary to make the edit would not have the guts to do it and risk whatever edit war or name calling that may ensue. signed,Rosguill talk 16:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Also it's a very obscure article, and there's who they're reverting (Piotrus), and the timing of the revert (within three minutes), on an article they've never edited before or since (though IW did). I agree it's a good edit, I'd have made it myself, but there are less than ten people (maybe less than five who are not banned) who would legitimately be in a position to make that edit. Levivich 16:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Levivich - I understand you changed your mind about letting go "of the Ghost of Icewhiz" - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do feel like one of the worst parts of these sorts of persistent sockpuppets that target a particular topic area is the distrust they sow; it's harder to edit when you have to constantly wonder if the new user is another IceWhiz sock. At the same time, we do have to recognize now that while not every new editor who holds IceWhiz' views was a sock, it did turn out that a fairly shockingly high percentage of them were. Just looking at one recent AE report, 2/3rds of the people who weighed in on one side was Icewhiz. Likewise, here, 2/3rds of the people on one side are Icewhiz.  (I will point out that the third editor is the same in both cases - which is important because it shows that Icewhiz was using socks to create the illusion of support for positions that few  legitimate editors actually held.) AE is not a vote, obviously, but it's clear that Icewhiz felt that doing that increased his chances of removing editors he disagreed with. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Aquillion - I do feel like one of the worst parts of these sorts of persistent sockpuppets that target a particular topic area is the distrust they sow; it's harder to edit when you have to constantly wonder if the new user is another IceWhiz sock.
 * I agree %100. Icewhiz caused me so much anxiety in the past that Lord only knows how I outlived it. I was shadowed and harassed by his confirmed and assumed sock puppets for ages. I'm full of mistrust every time I notice a newish account with slightly similar to Icewhiz's POV. GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How the heck is Icewhiz able to create & use sock puppets, if he's globally banned? GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He's an 1337 H4x0r! El_C 14:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The first thought that comes to mind is "lol". The second thought after reading a few comments here (tl;dr) is "bwahaha". And the third thought is "damn! That's pretty damming". It also make feel exactly like : makes me feel like my crazy suspicions aren't so crazy. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Appealing to Jimbo Wales sounds like a bad plan to me. Imagine the brou-ha-ha if Jimbo uses the "founder" bit, or whatever he has now, to reinstate Eostrix against the wishes of ArbCom. I'd suggest the only route available is to somehow convince ArbCom that Eostrix is indeed nothing to do with Icewhiz. That may be tricky, given that the "evidence" under which they were found out is classified. I'm not even sure what my first course of action would be if I were to somehow end up falsely accused of being a sock of a long-term-abuse account... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Jimbo explicitly has the power to overrule Arbcom in cases that don't involve his actions, and Icewhiz attempted to appeal a past topic ban to Jimbo, however they were blocked for unrelated reasons before the appeal could be resolved. This has nothing to do with the technical "founder" bit. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 15:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no chance that Jimbo will actually do that in the face of the community, arbcom, and Trust and Safety all saying he shouldn't be here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, JW prefers to play the figure head role, Swedish monarchy style. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He said in that Icewhiz appeal that in this case, as with all cases, I'm not going to hear an appeal or second guess ArbCom unless there is some very significant reason to do so.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, very interesting. A sort of prerogative of mercy granted to the Lord Protector Sir Jimbo of Wales. I suppose like many figureheads his powers are limitless, but in practice they're almost nonexistent. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the major problems is that Icewhiz and NoCal100 have taken the piss out of the community for so long now that any new-ish account with a certain POV (especially if they get involved with ARBPIA-related issues) is assumed by many admins to have a high probably of being their sock. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's likely a wider issue with editors and admins that have been around a while. If you're reasonably adept at editing, familiar with wikis, have IP editing experience, are decent at searching out policy and guidelines, or any combination thereof, many people will assume you're a sock. All of the work that goes into searching for and fighting LTAs also has the effect of scaring off and angering new users. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I mean at all. For example, an editor that makes multiple gnoming edits to reach 30/500, and then goes straight for ARBPIA (or anyother controversial area). Or a  editor that edits for a while and then tries to drag certain editors to AE; such editors, of course, being the main ones on the "opposing side" to IW or Nocal. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a specific case, but I think it's part of a wider issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not even a specific case (although one current one matches it). There have been many, especially when you expand the "controversial areas" outside ARBPIA. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we're actually in agreement. There are so many LTAs and socks that show up, and so many editors with different experiences with them, that it's easy for an editor to see someone who fits some pattern they recognize, i.e. new-ish account with a certain POV involved in ARBPIA-related issues as a sock or LTA. It's a hard situation because often times it is a sock or LTA, but if it's not you're biting a newbie.
 * Luckily I stuck it out, and now that I have a bit more experience I see that there is really a LOT of socks and LTAs all over the place. I don't hold it against the people who questioned me when I had just started my account, or who wouldn't grant an IPBE, because now I see how common the issue is. The more time I spend on Wikipedia, the more of it I see, the more I'm starting to assume new editors may be socks. It's a bad feedback loop, and unfortunately I don't see an easy way out of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The way out is to simply be patient, provide the talk page with reasoned arguments, using the best RS available  even if you suspect your interlocutor may be a sock. The weakness of sockpuppets is that they don't seem generally to know much about the topics, they concentrate on the POV of leads (apparently not reading further or calculating that readers don't get beyond that)  and tend to obsess about a single datum in an attritional manner etc. The more familiarity with the topic, the less cogency much of this rather passive aggressive posturing. This is certainly true in the I/P area where first class academic works on virtually everything abound, thanks to Israeli and diaspora scholarship. In this area, the POV warrior has, in terms of quality sources, very little to go on. And I think that would be true of any other area of historical interest.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a common issue in these topic areas in fact, going over my browser history, I believe I was suspicious of 11Fox11 in the past, since it looks like I spent some time examining their edit history and checking their interactions with various users. Anyone who has edited ARBPIA or AP2 for any significant length of time knows the experience of seeing a new user appear and immediately leap into long-running disputes with strident views, detailed knowledge of Wikipedia practice, an eerie sense of familiarity, and an aggressive willingness to push to the limits of but never beyond the restrictions of the Wikipedia policies that are more easily enforced. This is frustrating because I think not all such editors are necessarily returning socks (the reality is that the underlying culture wars, by their nature, churn out people with very similar views; and sometimes a "new" account can not actually be new while still being legitimate), but enough of them turn out to be sockpuppets when closely inspected that I'm quite certain a large number are ones who I just don't know who to compare them to or who are just being careful enough to avoid obvious overlap and tells. If they were behaving themselves it wouldn't be such a big issue, but many of them feel like they're continuing the behavior that got them banned - the reality is that many things (WP:CIVILPOV in particular, as well as certain specific kinds of incivility) can take a long time to get banned for. Those are the cases where I feel ban-evasion causes the most trouble and wasted time for editors. Right now I'm asking myself "what could I have done to catch 11Fox11 when I first suspected them?" and short of "flat-out guess it was Icewhiz, push for a CU on those grounds and somehow convince someone to run one despite a lack of enough evidence to really convince myself", I'm drawing a blank. Especially since based on what people are saying, the evidence is equivocal enough that it might not have gone anywhere even if a CU was run. --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any updates from T&S? Lomrjyo (publican) ( taxes ) 17:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Lomrjyo: It is unlikely that we will hear from them soon (if at all). They generally don't publically comment on specific cases. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If Eostrix weren't Icewhiz, I wonder how they'd prove it—i'm assuming they don't get to see evidence against them, so how does it work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have high hopes for blocked under SPI, hence the need to be absolutely sure when making blocks for sockpuppetry. It is even rarer for those blocked by the Committee or under CheckUser evidence to get unblocked down the road with protestations of innocence; most successful appeals are because the essence of the request was "I made a mistake, a horrible one; please forgive me". Trying to poke holes in behavioural or technical evidence just leads to those reviewing unblocks to say "they're smart, they knew how to avoid their old tell-tale signs". (I realise that this comment shows a great deal of my cynicism, but I think the honest answer to your question is that it's highly unlikely they'll be unblocked). Sdrqaz (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC); modified 20:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the terrifying part. Our policy (somewhere, can't remember where) tells those accused not to panic, that if they aren't a sock not to worry, we seldom get this wrong. But how do we know how often we get it wrong? —valereee (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely (it's at ). In many ways, I think the room for administrative error is the smallest at SPI. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Miscarriage of justice is not a Wikipedia-specific concern. The only practical approach is to accept that it exists, and that it is rare enough not to worry about it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite right. We do need to accept that it exists and we should hope that it is rare enough to not be a crisis. Except there is definitely high quality research about how it happens and also evidence of things that can mitigate it. We obviously don't have "eyewitnesses" but there is research on how to mitigate the problems with their unreliability that police departments can use. So what lessons are we taking from research into this topic to make such miscarriages more rare? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As a victim of a miscarriage of justice (check my block log if you don't remember), I can confirm its quite frustrating (at least, in the beginning). Beyond that, I have no clue as to this specific case (beyond my occasional noticing of AN/ANI/ARCA threads on the wider topic area - which is just a perpetual problem, socks or not), and I hope that in this case Arb made the right decision. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was you. Face-smile.svg I remember the permission discussion at Special:Permalink/1001814559, but I forgot the username. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Eostrix and others have been locked by the WMF as global ban enforcement. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should this be taken as confirmation that the WMF also believe Eostrix to be Icewhiz, or just that they trust Arbcom's judgement?Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WMF global ban enforcement actions are taken independent of community process. They will have likely looked at the same evidence that ArbCom was provided, in addition to other information. It's only confirmation that the WMF believes Eostrix to be a globally-banned user (#00025762), which may or may not be Icewhiz (but probably is). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: as one who was targeted by Icewhiz both on and off-wiki; this was too close for comfort. A huge THANK YOU to arb.com for their work on this one. 👏 Please accept some 🌷💐🌼🌸🌹🌻🌺 from me! Some points:
 * Eostrix wasn't on my radar at all, while User:Hippeus,  User:11Fox11, & User:Geshem Bracha most certainly were (all were active in the ARBPIA area). I was 90%++ sure that Fox and Geshem were socks; but I thought that, say, 11Fox11 was far too stupid/emotional to be Icewhiz: he has either "loaned" that account out to others, or Icewhiz is really good a "dumbing down".
 * Eostrix was clearly gunning for CU status: look at all the CU he commented on; 47+35 of his last 500+500 edits were starting/commenting on Sockpuppet investigations,
 * In addition to the WP:AE-problems (see below) these socks have caused;  WP:RS/N has also become a target these last couple of years. IMO there is a long-term campaign to ban left-wing/Israeli-critical sources; the latest RfC:_CounterPunch resulted in CounterPunch being deprecated, this, while the latest RS/N Arutz Sheva resulted in Arutz Sheva still being  WP:RS(!!) Needless to say; Icewhiz socks voted strongly to ban CounterPunch  (User:Hippeus and  User:11Fox11), while Icewhiz voted to keep Arutz Sheva. This long-term skewing of sources pose a serious treath to the project, me thinks, so more eyes are (desperately) needed at WP:RS/N. And most of all: a consistent standard in what goes for being WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, that sucks. CounterPunch is great. El_C 23:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Huldra, this isn't to diminish from your point that a potentially compromised CU is of paramount concern. It definitely bears repeating. I just really love CounterPunch! El_C 23:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And that CounterPunch is banned, while Arutz Sheva is RS: that makes me a just a "tad" frustrated. We really need some consistent standard here! Huldra (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I read both plenty, just for different purposes. The news stories I read in passing on Arutz Sheva (via Hebrew Google News indexing) seems to usually align with other mainstream Israeli publications. Obviously, unlike CounterPunch I find their analyses and opinion pieces to be usually subpar. But for sure, consistent standards, you're preaching to the choir. El_C 00:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing CounterPunch mentioned in the context of a long-term campaign to ban left-wing/Israeli-critical sources, I'm going to jump in here. As the person who started the RfC for its deprecation, no, the RfC being launched was not because of some long-term campaign to ban sources that provide criticism of Israel. After seeing and  arguing over the source (and another I haven't really any knowledge of) on RSN. While, yes, Icewhiz appears to not like sources with an anti-Zionist editorial line, the substantial issues with the source that I detailed in the RfC didn't really touch upon that sort of stuff. The closest I came to doing that, I guess, was describing that the source has published that WTC-7 was subject to controlled demolition  (phrased also as WTC-7 "was bombed") and that 9/11 was a false flag conducted by "dancing Israelis". The editors who closed the discussion (including  after a NAC close by  was vacated) seemed to think that the arguments entailed its deprecation. By my reading of the conversation, it was myself and  who seemed to have most forcefully advocated for the deprecation within that conversation. While  is right that 11fox11 and Hippeus did support the source's deprecation, they didn't really seem to add anything substantial to the conversation (their comments feel more like they were voting rather than !voting), so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. If there's evidence of these socks on RSN constantly skewing discussions in a way that influences their outcome, that would be a big problem for our ability to adhere to WP:NPOV, but I don't think that the CounterPunch RfC is an example of that. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * fwiw, I thought the original close on the CounterPunch deprecation RFC was good enough that I just used 's summary text - it wasn't just a numerical matter, it was the quality of the arguments for deprecation, and they were precisely the sort of well-backed arguments for deprecation that have convinced previously. I'd say that RFC with those arguments couldn't have reasonably concluded other than in a deprecation. If the RFC were rerun, I would be extremely surprised to see sufficient and strong enough countervailing arguments to the clearly dreadful and unusable nonsense that was cited. I speak as someone previously unfamiliar with CounterPunch and having no particular opinion on it - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is, that when we get to anti-Zionist sources, the "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion-rule" is in place, while it is not in place wrt other sources. Ie, any mistake, say CounterPunch has published will count against it, while that is in general not true for all so-called WP:RS. I mentioned a case on the CounterPunch-discussion: Luke Harding has published pure garbage in The Guardian about Assange; articles which are still up, and for which The Guardian never have apologised. Should we then deprecate the Guardian? Not to mention that virtually 100% of what counts as WP:RS on Wikipedia were totally convinced about Saddam Husseins's WMD in 2003.... and that Muammar Gaddafi was about to massacre the inhabitant in Benghazi in 2011 (Both allegation later turned out to be 100% fabrications). No matter what garbage we are fed  by MSM; they remain WP:RS. For publication which offer another view: there the "Caesar's wife-rule" hold, (enthusiastically endorsed by en endless supply of socks). Huldra (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think you can make a convincing case at WP:RSN, that would be the place to do so. If you think you can't, this may say more about your understanding of Wikipedia sourcing guidelines than it does about Wikipedia sourcing guidelines - David Gerard (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest possibly re-running RFCs where multiple Icewhiz socks participated, especially if there's any reason to think a different outcome could occur. (I'll note that in some of those they were closed early and probably would not have had enough comments for those early closures if Icewhiz' socks were removed.) This isn't the place to rehash the arguments, but we do have specific venues for that. I remember that I did think the Counterpunch one in particular seemed unusual and rushed at the time, based more on a handful of articles used as examples rather than the more thorough examination of how a source is treated by secondary sources that we usually require for full depreciation, but by the time I noticed it it had already closed, and I didn't look too closely at the arguments made as a result - nothing would be harmed by putting it through a full 30-day RFC to dispel any doubts about socking. --Aquillion (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well said. I don't read Counterpunch much. I do know that, unlike Arutz Sheva, it regularly hosts the views and analyses of numerous high profile scholars, historians and writers of distinction in their fields. It has in the distant past carried crap opinionizing - but generally that is not its style. It is now deprecated, while a settler rag which touts the case for Palestinians as inveterate terrorists, backed the view Obama was a shadowy anti-Israeli manipulator, provides a page for the views of a journalist discredited and fired from a major Italian newspaper because his 'books' were found to be copy-and-paste plagiarisms of other journalists, and has no distinguished contributors, was given a free pass. So, the outcome was, one libertarian/'left-wing'/anarchic organ that does provide serious commentary by first rate critics (whose assumptions are generally about 'legality') is deprecated, and another that urges the consistent delegitimation of international law is given a tacit nod of tolerance. That discrepancy is a serious example of WP:Systemic bias inscribed into our random, compartmentalized RS rulings.Nishidani (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this just makes me think we should deprecate Arutz Sheva as well. Why not take that to RS/N? I can't find any discussions about it that aren't a few years old, before we started deprecating more sources that spread conspiracies and false information etc. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ironically, Eostrix worked heavily in tagging pages for speedy deletion with db-g5. Before supporting, I looked through their contributions and did notice a high familiarity of Wikipedia's processes at the very beginning of their tenure, but my gut didn't wrench up like it did in 's RFA which I recused myself from. I'll need to pull my reservations up for the future. ✗  plicit  11:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously??? I didn't expect that. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Very late to comment but just noticed the RfA notice had disappeared from my watchlist. Superb work by those who pursued this, a close call but ultimately the right outcome has prevailed. Cavalryman (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC).
 * Eostrix did contribute a GA and about two years of seemingly decent work at UAA, CSD and AfD, so for every cloud... – Teratix ₵ 07:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

and others: AFAIK, there is no appeal against an RfA closure. This closure of the RfA and the global blocking was a pre-emptive desysoping in a way. Which would mean, as in all cases of desysoping, that there is no appeal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

AE cases of confirmed sockpuppets
Above, Nableezy writes: "11Fox11 was used to get one user topic banned and agitated for others and stoked a handful of edit-wars. Hippeus got a logged warning against another long term Icewhiz target as well as an exceedingly wide topic ban imposed on another." He is referring to, and. He could have added a logged warning against me to that list, as well as a topic ban against , and a warning against.

How do we discourage sockpuppets by ensuring they are not able to have an impact after they are found out? With editing it is easy to undo post a successful SPI. But AE cases are harder, not least because the sock puppet may well have managed to goad their victims into behavior which genuinely needs sanction.

I don't know the answer here, but we need a better solution than we have now, which is along the lines of "oh well those victims can open appeal against their sanctions if they like". At the least we need clear guidance for admins on how to think about exercising their discretion in such situations.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to lifting sanctions on any editors, who ended up sanctioned due to a sockpuppet making the AE report. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works. Per WP:ACDS:


 * No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:


 * the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
 * prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).


 * I suppose that ArbCom could amend that portion, but I doubt they'd make such a blanket change. Relatedly: an hour ago I was informed that a BLPTALK removal of questionable external links by Hippeus was just re-inserted with a rv sock reasoning (diff). In any case, each case ought to be examined according to its individual merits. El_C 21:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed that this probably wont change from above. And that reinsertion shouldnt have happened. But maybe, just maybe, the admins who imposed sanctions on reports that were created by banned users should consider whether or not those sanctions should stand and allow said banned user to have accomplished his goals. You know WP:ARBPIA2 resulted in several bans; Nishidani, Jayjg (both rescinded by ArbCom later), and then NoCal100/Canadian Monkey (same person), Nickhh, Pedrito, MeteorMaker, and G-Dett. Largely as a result NoCal100/Canadian Monkey instigated edit-wars, both socks of a previously topic-banned and then vanished editor (Isarig/Former user 2). The end result of that case is just that NoCal100 is still editing with a never ending parade of socks, and those four other editors are not. He very much accomplished his goals there, got several opponents banned, and just kept going because the ban that was supposedly equally deserved and equally applied was never actually applied to him as he just started editing with new accounts. So maybe consider if you want to participate in Icewhiz's latest triumphs of said logged warning and topic bans, or if youd rather not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what pool of admins you're expecting to draw from to attend to WP:AE, then, if it's that amorphous. Personally, I don't really recognize any of the names on that list (excluding Nishidani and Jayjg, obviously). I suppose NoCal100 sounds familiar, but maybe it was on account of this lovely exchange on my talk page a few days ago...? Isarig also rings a bell. But that's about it. I don't think having AE reports ignored because they seem 'risky' is the answer, though it may well end up happening just organically. Who knows? El_C 22:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh no, ARBPIA2 is from many years ago, was just an example of how socks are able to accomplish their goals, and because they are willing to be dishonest about socking to begin with that any penalty (indef block) is only transitory. Im not asking for anybody to ignore a report. What I am saying is that if you allow those sanctions to stand after you know that they were the product of reports from a banned user that you are, wittingly or otherwise, aiding this latest sockpuppet set of a banned user to continue accomplishing his goals. There is a reason why WP:BANREVERT is a thing. Because if you do not reverse a user's actions taken in defiance of that ban that there is no real deterrence to continuing to sock around the ban. By reversing those "accomplishments" you may make the person feel that it is not worth the effort if their actions dont stand anyway. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it feels like we've come full circle to my BLPTALK example above. This is a perennial problem. If I, say, block a user for harassing another, but said harassment just happened to have been reported by a banned sock, I'm not going to automatically unblock for that reason alone, prize or no prize. If you're trying to make a more nuanced point, I don't get it. El_C 22:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, thats my point. Wittingly or otherwise, and one has to think wittingly after knowing that it comes from a banned sock, you're helping said banned sock accomplish his or her goals, and given them reason to continue to attempt to do so. I didnt really expect any other answer from you though. I may have hoped for one that involves maybe Ill go back and reconsider my past enforcement actions in which I was effectively played by a banned editor in to doing his bidding. But didnt expect it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good talk. El_C 23:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A simple solution would be don't take the bait. Nobody can be forced to take the bait. It's the same as in real life. You can't blame your manipulator if you do something illegal. You can't say something like I was baited to rob a bank, so I'm actually innocent of the act. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Entrapment is a thing that exists. Using socks to wear someone's patience thin enough to cause them to behave without civility or to edit war certainly mitigates the offense to some degree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this in more detail below, but the specific case that concerns me is if there's any reason to believe the filer-sockpuppet baited the user. Being baited is sometimes a mitigating circumstance and sometimes is not; I would say that if someone was sanctioned in a situation where it was clear they were baited by the filer, or if it was otherwise a two-sided issue where it's clear in retrospect that the filer was constantly escalating things because they were a throwaway sockpuppet, that should probably be overturned, because that specific sequence of events is clearly abusable by people willing to use sockpuppets to try and get others banned. --Aquillion (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any system is abusable. The only workable solution is to outsmart the abusers. Just don't take the bait. Just like in real life, cops outsmart criminals, and if the criminals are smarter then they get away. Sockmasters can try and get others banned, but they will always fail if we're smarter. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that they will always fail if we are smarter, but this means we have to be smarter at all levels, taking all factors into account - when editing, when handling AE reports, and when reviewing them after a sockpuppet has been exposed. I strenuously disagree that if an editor is successfully baited they must always bear all the responsibility for that themselves; the fact is that being baited is well-established as a mitigating circumstance when it comes to WP:AE, precisely because without it we create incentives for users to deliberately bait each other and behave abrasively towards each other in hopes of sparking a reaction that could get someone they disagree with banned. No editor is expected to always have ideal behavior, and in particular no editor is expected to have ideal behavior if they are facing constant harassment and abuse. Normally editors are discouraged from using incivility and low-grade harassment to try and make an editor they disagree with lose their temper and slip up by the fact that they will probably get banned themselves; but if they're using sockpuppets, this disappears - if you insist on ignoring that reality, you're creating a situation where anyone in controversial topic areas is going to face harassment from sockpuppets hoping to remove them. In those circumstances, administrators are required to be smarter by taking the full context into account, including the fact that pressure caused by constant incivility and pressure from recurring socks can cause an otherwise-upstanding editor to slip up in ways that do not reflect their normal behavior and which therefore do not justify serious sanctions. (Obviously, the extent to which an editor's actions are a result of harassment is something that has to be judged on a case-by-case basis - but the revelation that the user they were in a dispute with was a sockpuppet changes the calculus in a way that at least justifies looking back over the circumstances with the new revelations in mind.  Refusing to do so isn't being smarter, it's abandoning editors who are targeted to the wolves.)  Any system is abusible, but we need to work to minimize abuse, and in particular to minimize incentives for abuse.  --Aquillion (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no clear solution. This is a really complex issue. Each case has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Clearly, sockmaster has an advantage with many lives vs legit user with only 1 life. Harassment should be reported and dealt with swiftly, so that the socks/baiters get blocked instead. There is no free out of jail ticket, but a re-analysis of each related case should be done with the sock revelation. That is a lot of work. Admins can barely deal with new dispute cases currently. It's like a war of attrition. Who has the most determination + intelligence shall win, not so much different from real life. Building the most neutral encyclopedia is a very difficult and challenging task. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The comments by above are so totally unrealistic with so little understanding of how people work that I looked at their contributions and was surprised to see that they have been indefinitely blocked. That arose from a discussion on their talk and at ANI where the perils of dealing with other people are fully apparent. It's not always possible for a human to maintain their saint-like persona. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the thing to do is raise it with the enforcing administrator and, if they decline and you still think it's worth pursuing, at AE. It is a complex question; we absolutely want to deny ban-evading sockpuppets any benefit from their actions, but (like starting an RFC) an AE goes beyond just their actions once started and depends on an admin agreeing to go anywhere. If the AE enforcement is blatantly correct - eg. the accused repeatedly breached 3RR, was blatantly uncivil, and did other things that would obviously have gotten anyone topic-banned or worse if it came to AE attention - then there's no real point to rolling it back just because it had a bad filer. But if it was an equivocal case where the fact that the filer had unclean hands might have mattered, then it could be worth raising, especially if it was a two-sided dispute in a situation where eg. this revelation means we want to look more closely at the filer's behavior. I'd be particularly concerned about situations that ended with something like "both people were bad and the accused was baited, but the accused still behaved badly and the filer has less of a history, so topic-ban for the accused and warning for the filer", because that sort of thing would encourage ban-evaders and others to use throwaway sockpuppets to bait and prod people they want to get banned and then drag them to AE when they react. That is to say, the more involved the filer was in the situation and the more uncertain the outcome, the more it seems to me that an appeal based on the filer being a sockpuppet makes sense. But that requires looking at each case, so I would suggest appealing to the admin or going back to AE rather than some sort of automatic get-out-of-jail-free card. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * One other thing that leaps out at me is that in many of those cases Icewhiz used multiple socks to try and get the same users sanctioned (ie. accusing with one sock, then arguing in support of that accusation with another in order to create the illusion of support - see eg. here.) That one particularly sticks out because it is very unusual to have another editor wander in and comment on a WP:3RRN report. Regardless of what is done with those past sanctions, I would strongly advise anyone who has been targeted by Icewhiz and his socks in the past to be on the lookout for that sort of behavior in the future, since it seems like an obvious tell. (It is a bit trickier at AE because it is not uncommon for people with similar views to back each other up there, but it is at least worth keeping an eye out for groups of people who seem to all weigh in on AE reports against people Icewhiz has had previous disputes with. The 3RRN one, though, was such a dead giveaway that it seems unfortunate it was missed at the time - is there any reasonable explanation for how Hippeus could have ended up there?) --Aquillion (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that exact thing happened to me and I knew they were socks. So I filed a report which was inconclusive and then left to go stale. So being on the lookout did not help at all. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it might be worth reviewing that one to figure out if they could have been caught there, what could have been done to make a stronger case with the evidence available at the time, and so on. I'm a bit surprised it was just closed like that - usually a "possible" case comes down to behavioral evidence. At a glance, if I were writing it, I would have spent a bit more time talking about specific writing styles and the like. Reading 11Fox11's comments there knowing they're the same person (and were a ban-evader from the start) is slightly stomach-turning, though. It might also be worth poking Bradv to ask what additional evidence would have convinced them in order to get a better idea of how to handle such situations in the future. (In [this] very similar case involving many of the same people, they blocked based on behavioral evidence despite the CU saying unrelated; getting a sense of how they saw the two might help for writing useful SPIs in the future.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Onceinawhile Hear, hear. There is a big problem related to communication between functionaries (admins+) and the regular users. In theory, we are allowed to provide feedback, but in practice, I think many of us feel ignored. We are the general populace, often the primary victims, but we get not the "fellow volunteer collegue" treatment but the offhand "police" "mind your business, need to know, don't bother us" one. At least that's how I feel 99% of the time. When I see a likely new sock I am increasingly not motivated to do anything about it, as I feel that my previous reports/complains have not been welcomed (being mostly ignored, and more likely to have resulted in being warned not to cause trouble - BITE/ABF - than appreciated, even through most if not all of the editors I've reported end up blocked eventually). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I got a lot of useful information about socks from non-Admins. Doug Weller  talk 11:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * re: " I would strongly advise anyone who has been targeted by Icewhiz and his socks in the past to be on the lookout for that sort of behavior in the future". Speaking as someone targetted by Icewhiz and familiar with his patterns, and also as someone who reported his socks here and there, I am on the lookout and I have very little evidence this is doing anything good. I already noted above how I feel that my evidence to SPI/ArbCom seems ignored, which hardly encourages me to spend time hunting Ice's socks. And when recently I and VM, another editor familiar with Icewhiz and his socking, pointed out a suspicious duckish behavior by one sock at AN (in hindsight, correctly, and in a thread where another of his now confirmed socks was involved too!), I was accused of BITING newbies, bad faith and even of tag teaming, and mauled by a prolific non-admin commentator who doesn't believe Icewhiz is a problem, whose view was seemingly endorsed by an admin. So the lesseon to take from this is that calling out likely socks is going to get you warned for BITING/ABF, and if two people call out a sock, then you are a "tag team" of BITERS/ABFers. Which takes us to solution a, i.e. sending evidence to SPI/ArbCom, where you get zero feedback if your efforts are appreciated or useful - although I guess it beats getting warned. The current environment is IMHO very sock empowering and sock-hunter depowering, and I am quite surprise Icewhiz socks were identified and caught. Clearly, something is working at some levels, which is good, but at the levels I see day to day, things are not looking particularly well, and if not for what happened just now, if asked about who's winning the fight, I'd have said "sockmasters and their allies". <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue is that the people who are most likely to notice a sockpuppet are going to be the people who come into disputes with them, since that's when you tend to pay close enough attention to a user to get a sense of deja-vu if you encounter someone with a similar style or if someone is behaving unusually; this often makes it hard for reports to be taken seriously, since they appear self-motivated (you can see 11Fox11 leaning on this hard in every report above; they were obviously well-familiar with the dynamic.) I don't know how to solve this, but I do think it's important to underline what a problem sockpuppets are in controversial topic areas and how frustrating it is to realize you have wasted time and energy on what turns out to have been sockpuppet shenanigans. --Aquillion (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and this is related to the big dysfunctionality I (and surely many others) described (I call it "mud sticks"). Old editors who don't become admins are increasinly likely to be "controversial" as their past mistaks accumlate and are dragged forward to poison the well for years upon years, which makes the baiting by new flood of socks and such a good strategy. The socks are fighting a succesfull attrition war - they don't care how many socks are burned, if in the long run they succeed in ruining the reputation of their targets ("it surely takes two to tango...", "where there is smoke there must be fire", etc.) or just stressing them out so they burn and leave the projects. On numerous occasions when I spotted the later-confirmed Ice sock, I was told I am seeing shadows and causing trouble. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There should be a QPQ-type rule that for every AE you file you have to bring one article in the topic area to GA, and you have to link to it in the template. Levivich 23:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We'd need more GA reviewers. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A good problem to have! -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This thread illustrates exactly why we need some agreed guidance for admins to follow in this situation. Not “unblock everyone”. Just a directional view about how seriously to take such a reassessment. WP:AE is a lottery, with admins taking a very wide variety of views. One of the admins on this thread admitted to me that they were aggressively handing out bans to almost everyone for a few weeks because of one unrelated case that really irked them. At the very least, surely we can expect some consistency of approach once a sock has been exposed. Otherwise we are are abdicating our responsibility to discourage socks. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think anything more is needed beyond a general statement that the involvement of sockpuppets is at least plausible grounds for an appeal at WP:AE. It is not at all certain, and I think it would depend on whether the sockpuppets were central to events (and in particular whether knowing they were sockpuppets at the time would have changed things.)  But if people are saying "no, you can't even try to appeal based on that at all, it should be rejected out of hand" then I think that's absurd - if nothing else, in situations where resolving an AE case involved looking at the behavior of multiple editors and determining blame for mutual misconduct, the revelation that one editor was a sockpuppet substantially changes the underlying incentives and therefore the assumptions that ought to go into determining who was at fault. Actions by the sockpuppet that previously seemed innocent or as excusable mistakes (because eg. they seemed to have a short history) obviously seem much less so with the revelation that they are a sock, and might form a pattern of harassment or other intentional disruption that could serve as a mitigating circumstance. Or, in other words, the question to ask is "if this had been known at the time, would it have changed anything?" --Aquillion (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets are not allowed to edit. Any successful disciplinary measure initiated or spurred on by a sock should be re-evaluated unless there is incontrovertible evidence backing the decision.  Doug Weller  talk 11:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Problematic behaviour in a topic area is problematic regardless, as it is harmful for the topic area. AE is not a consensus process, so sockpuppets cannot (in theory) skew the outcome except to the extent that they can convince an uninvolved admin of their claims. Regardless, obviously there can't be a free pass for problematic conduct just because a sockpuppet (unknown to everyone else at the time) happened to be the reporting editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, what is 'problematic'? Of course we are rule-governed, but rules are made to expedite functional efficiency, the aim being to create, maintain and update encyclopedic articles. WP:Civil, if imposed with puritanical rigour can make mountains out of molehills. It's one of the socks' strong cards. A few stray or loose words over a month can be adduced as evidence that this or that editor is 'problematical'. That entering a difficult topic area, doing nothing like the painstaking work your adversary otherwise may be noted for; reverting, tagteaming; tweaking, monitoring p's and q's (all in context necessary tasks), and rushing to ANI/AE whenever one has mustered a case stitched up from a handful of diffs of irascibility, is, in my book, self-evidently problematical, even in those whose prose may flawlessly illustrate the best principles of Davy's Christian Gentleman. Novels (does anyone read them these days?) are written round the power of tacit aggression and grievance in otherwise highly urbane speech.We can't read between the lines in these cases for evidential spoors, but a certain tacit familiarity with the games people play can't do harm in assessing whether the undoubted evidence is an index of a serious problem or just piddling fussiness to a purpose.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BMB. The reports these actions resulted from should be treated as though they never happened. If another user wants to make a complaint then do that. But as it stands, Icewhiz has once again succeeded in the purpose of his socking, in that several of his longtime targets have been blocked or topic banned as a result of his actions. And this latest set of indef blocks? Hasnt stopped him before, why would it now, especially given how successful each iteration is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support a re-evaluation of the topic ban against mentioned above. I have almost never agreed with Jontel and have been in heavy disagreement with them many times, but never saw examples of violation of WP policy or un-civil practices. The evidence presented in the case linked above looks compelling at first glance, but when re-read with knowledge that the two complainants are the same person tag-teaming with themselves it looks much more shaky. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

How was this handled in the past? Did we do re-reviews of discussions or actions after catching Edgar, Cirt, or EEML? Levivich 14:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * While reviewing ancient history can occasionally be useful, how about we scrutinize editors who consistently defend confirmed Icewhiz socks, deny that he is socking, and besmirch his victims with tag teaming accusations? A pattern of repeated errors in judgement that de facto empower socks in general, or specific sockmasters in particular, should be a matter for community concern. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Scrutinizing such behaviour should not be a problem to righteous editors. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So instead, a sockmaster makes a pile of socks over a couple years arguing the opposite of their POV, and when people agree with or defend those socks then it's also a matter for community concern? The problem isn't necessarily the POV or content the sock wants to add. It could be perfectly benign. It's the behavior that got them blocked in the first place which is the problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's extremely dangerous to go after people who merely defended socks (after all, lots of people were taken in.) At the same time, as I understand it, Icewhiz himself - in addition to sockpuppetery - coordinates with other editors who agree with him off-wiki; it is entirely reasonable to note the possibility that someone who repeatedly and stridently defends Icewhiz socks against sockpuppetry allegations may be operating either unknowingly or knowingly as a meatpuppet for him. In any case - if someone repeatedly brought sockpuppet allegations that seemed spurred by a desire to remove opposing editors and repeatedly turned out to be not just slightly wrong, we would probably ask them to stop bringing that sort of thing to SPI. I think it's fair to suggest that editors who have repeatedly defended Icewhiz socks avoid similar involvement in sockpuppet cases in the ARBPIA topic area; it suggests that their desire to protect editors who agree with them is clouding their judgment, in the same way we would question the judgment of someone who repeatedly brought sockpuppet allegation against people they were in a dispute with when there is no basis for it at all. Some mistakes at SPI are understandable and expected - part of the reason to ask for a CU is because there is reason to suspect a sockpuppet, but not enough to be certain; my opinion is that if a CU considers there to be enough evidence to run a CU, the case was probably valid even if ultimately there's not enough there - but if someone is constantly glaringly wrong in the same direction, for the same reasons, that is an indication that they should perhaps slow down. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see three diffs of anyone defending Icewhiz socks or denying that Icewhiz was socking. Levivich 18:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Assume you mean after they have been found to be Icewhiz socks.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Or before. I guess there's two below. Levivich 19:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When this SPI was filed there was no mention of Icewhiz. When I commented it felt for me just another attempt to remove ideological opponent from the area. And the fact is that the case was closed with no action by Admin Also he fooled half of Wikipedia so I am guilty as anyone that voted for his RFA if anything  Shrike (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, when you say that you felt it was an attempt to remove ideological opponent from the area, does that mean you believe you thought it had a reasonable chance of succeeding, even though you didn't think that the subject was IceWhiz at the time? Do you think that the filer believed them to be IceWhiz, in good faith?  If not - ie. you think they were plainly not IceWhiz, the filer knew this, and it plainly had no chance of success - then what do you think the filer was trying to accomplish? I feel like the battleground approach at AE (ie. people aggressively attacking people they disagree with and defending people they agree with) has seeped into SPI, where it makes even less sense - SPI is very binary; either it was IceWhiz or it wasn't, with the only ambiguity being in the level of evidence. There's no accumulation of warnings, nor is there much that the larger context can add aside from direct evidence of whether they're a sockpuppet. Is your contention that people should never raise good-faith concerns that someone they disagree with might be a sockpuppet? I'm mostly baffled by the strident way you defended them there - even if you were incensed by the appearance of someone calling for an SPI against someone they disagreed with, the reality is that the people most likely to notice a sockpuppet are those in a dispute with them - and surely an attempt to retain an ideological ally in the area is at least an equally serious problem.  If anything, I would consider the latter case far worse; we ultimately do need people who look like socks to be taken to SPI (and sometimes those SPIs will come up short; the whole reason we use CUs is because sometimes there is circumstanctial evidence and additional investigation is needed.)  It is important that users who suspect a sock be willing to take that step, without worrying that a good-faith report with sufficient evidence to justify a CU will result in backlash.  But most of the time - unless you have a very specific reason why the evidence or case is flawed - I don't see "defenses" of users at SPI to be particularly productive; and seeing people calling for sanctions against someone simply for bringing a case to SPI sets off red-alarm bells in my head, since it can only have a chilling effect that discourages SPI cases in the future. Obviously we don't want SPI swamped with cases from people whose dim views of those they are in disputes with causes them to overestimate the evidence, but to me, the threshold for a "bad case" like that is that the CU is rejected, not that a CU agrees there is sufficient evidence for a check and then finds nothing. --Aquillion (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How bout the users that attempt to disrupt the spis?, . There was also this comment that aged like fine wine. Guess it has been more than just an apparition? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In light of the low success rate of Icewhiz's SPI archive, including the unlikely finding of the most recent one, I think my comment from May 2020 aged quite well. As you've said yourself, IW isn't even the only sockmaster in this topic area. Levivich 19:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me add two more, to get to the requested three: two and three, from earlier this month. Guess who two weeks ago was vocally defending both Astral Leap and Hippeus, apparently now confirmed as Ice's socks, and lambasting the editors who smelled something fishy for "tag teaming" ? Same editor who last year told the community "to let go of the Ghost of Icewhiz". Nothing to see here, just evil "tag team Poland" hunting poor, innocent socks of Icewhiz. WP:TROUT time, anyone? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, criticizing you is not the same thing as defending a sock or denying socking was occurring. This is what I'm talking about with "argumentum ad icewhizum": this isn't about Piotrus v. Icewhiz. It's about an encyclopedia, it's about BLP and NPOV and those kinds of things. So if someone points out a problem with BLP, like one of these Icewhiz socks did, or reverts an edit for NPOV, like one of these Icewhiz socks did, then yeah, I'm going to agree with BLP and NPOV, even if an Icewhiz sock also agrees with it. That's not defending the sock or the socking, that's defending the encyclopedia. This war that's been going on I guess for more than a decade in these Polish and Jewish topic areas is really nothing more than a fight amongst a small group of people on the internet. EEML and what Icewhiz is doing, to me, are just two factions engaged in the same tactics. Sometimes one side is right substantively, sometimes it's the other side. I'll agree with what's right substantively; I don't care about which side also agrees. Levivich 20:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes one side is right substantively, sometimes it's the other side. I'll agree with what's right substantively; I don't care about which side also agrees. No, your editing history, as anyone who is even remotely familiar with it knows all too well, shows exactly the opposite. You threw your support behind Icewhiz 1000% during the ArbCom case (pestering editors that had disagreed with him over minor "incivil" comments while completely ignoring the vile accusations he was concurrently making). And everytime you have shown up to a discussion which involved potential Icewhiz socks you have always defended or excused them. Your - now clearly laughable - "oh no when will the argumentum ad-Icewhiz finally stop!" comment provided and linked to above is just the tip of the iceberg. You've always defended them. Every. Single. Time. There's only one other editor who has been more strident and aggressive in defending Icewhiz socks than you (and we both know who I'm talking about).
 * Levivich, given the extremely bad judgement you have shown here on this issue perhaps this isn't the time to bring attention to yourself Especially by showing up once again to invent excuses for him via some weird ass Whataboutism about an irrelevant case from 12 years ago or saying "but there are other sock masters" (yes, there is a couple Icewhiz buddies who share his POV also socking like crazy in these TAs, what's your point?).  Volunteer Marek   21:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Where is any BLP or NPOV in E-960's topic ban appeal? Icewhiz socks got an editor topic banned and were trying to derail his appeal. When me and VM pointed out there is something fishy about these semi-active accounts suddenly appearing at AN, you accused us of... tag teaming against innocenet editors. Two weeks later a third sock of Ice's almost gets elected to adminship and you declare you still stand by your recommendation to "let go of the Ghost of Icewhiz". My jaw just hit the floor. What would it take for you to admit Icewhiz actions are a serious problem that has hardly been on the wane? "Sometimes one side is right substantively, sometimes it's the other side." Well, on that at least I can agree. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never denied that, and I freely admit that violations of WP:SOCK by IW happens and is a problem. Also by Yaniv. And NoCal. And some members of EEML (like you). All four of you were sanctioned in one way or another for this in 2021: it's ongoing (in your case, meat/canvass). This is the "war" I referred to, and it's probably the #1 problem in this topic area. Levivich 21:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously comparing me to Icewhiz? And accusing me of socking? Icewhiz must be laughing, as he was, AFAIK, the one and only person to try this before. This whataboutism and violations of WP:ASPERSIONS is just... rather than continue this, I'll just say I hope some clerks are watching this and will say, or do, something. This is getting beyond pale. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * violations of WP:SOCK by IW happens and is a problem. (...) Also by (like you) Ah, yes, false equivalence, that tried and true tactic of those who seek to defend the indefensible... Wait wait wait hold up! This isn't even "false equivalence". It's just ... false falsity. Neither Piotrus nor anyone else you weaselly implicitly allege has ever socked or been banned for it. Nevermind harassed or threatened other editors in real life like your buddy Icewhiz. This is just a lie. This is a new low even for you Levivich. It's about as pathetic of an attempt to derail a threat on behalf of a justly banned user as it gets. Seriously. You really should drop it.  Volunteer Marek   23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And damn it, I got to add to my comment above. You really have some fucking nerve. A long term abusive sock master who has harassed multiple editors and made violent threats against them almost sneaked his way through an RfA and here you show up going all "no no guys guys you have it all wrong the real problem is that the editors who were targets of Icewhiz's harassment are still around how dare they!!!". Fuck. Ing. A. I really can't believe this. Perhaps it's time to IBAN you or topic ban you from commenting on anything Icewhiz related. This has gone way past acceptable.  Volunteer Marek   23:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that defenses and counter-accusations on WP:SPI are generally unhelpful, especially from third parties. SPI isn't like AE, where there's often vital context specific to a topic area that can explain long-running disputes and help admins figure out who is at fault or what sanctions are justified; SPI is, mostly, a matter of "does the evidence meet the threshold or not." Several of the diffs linked above contain a chorus of "this is harassment, how dare you say that, you're just trying to remove someone you disagree with" (often partially from sockpuppets!) which, in addition to being WP:ASPERSIONS, is just... completely tangential; unlike AE, SPI is fairly binary. Admins and CUs are capable of recognizing vexatious filers on their own. I would actually suggest something discouraging third parties from weighing in at SPI at all unless they're specifically bringing additional evidence, avoiding these WP:BATTLEGROUND breakdowns. I do also think that the prominence of vexatious SPIs is somewhat overblown; an inaccurate or poorly-grounded SPI will go nowhere and serve only to embarrass the filer. It's true that people in a conflict often overestimate the evidence and file poorly-grounded SPIs; but there is zero incentive for someone to intentionally bring a case to SPI if they don't genuinely believe it's a case of socking. In this case, I think that the fact that multiple people suspected these socks for a long time (and even reported them), yet it took this long to catch them, suggests that we might want to consider ways to improve or streamline SPI, make it less stressful, encourage people to report things with well-written, solid reports, and so on. One way of doing that that leaps out at me is to try and reduce the pointless back-and-forth bickering and WP:ASPERSIONS that fill the reports linked above, which seem like they're likely to deter even valid reports. (Another way is to look back at those reports and figure out how they could have been improved.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

For all we know. Icewhiz could be using a sock, within this very discussion. Eitherway, I'm sure he's sitting back & enjoying his drama creations. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, my sense is that Icewhiz is more results-oriented than a drama fiend. I think this is a major setback for him, especially the RfA close call, just like it is for the community, especially the RfA close call. El_C 18:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * (forum-ish hence small font)@GoodDay - No, they are not present in this particular discussion, do not overestimate that individual. But they are examining every single post here - %110. I doubt it is with pleasure, however. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the editors in this discussion is a duck. This is based on their comments in various discussions over a period of time, but they have used a unique tactic so their edit history is differentiated. I had been wondering whether this editor was going to put themselves up for RfA, but this experience may make them think twice. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I am in agreement with Onceinawhile about this. I guess it cannot be publicly divulged if any other possible socks are under investigation? Also, there is another one currently listed at SPI which hasn't had much input on (and is quite obvious behaviourally IMO). Cheers, Number   5  7  22:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kind of. As others pointed out, he did achieve several things he'd wanted for a long time, especially at WP:AE; I'd assume he definitely views that as a success and intends to resume spamming AE with reports against people he disagrees with as soon as possible, especially since one takeaway he'll have drawn from this is that when he gets a hit there, it is something that can't be easily reversed even if the sockpuppet is caught. I know it's complex and there's no easy solution to that, but it is what it is and it'll be important to be vigilant about sockpuppets bringing reports to WP:AE in the future. It's true that wrongdoing is wrongdoing, but it's also true that this incentivizes Icewhiz to create an environment where everyone he disagrees with constantly has their actions gone over with a fine-toothed comb and gets dragged to AE whenever possible. (Related question - what if a sockpuppet who brought a report to AE is caught while the AE report is open? I suspect there are some admins that would close it immediately without any further consideration to anything it contains, and others that would object if they saw it as heading towards sanctions - this is something that might be worth discussing before it happens; it is likely to occur eventually if, as seems inevitable, AE continues to be targeted by sockpuppets.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Unless we want to support the Icewhiz-farm of socks, we need to make an automatic rescinding of any sanctions that his socks have caused/initiated. (At the moment: that includes sanctions/warnings against ZScarpia, Iskandar323, E-960, Onceinawhile, and Jontel.) Iff any of these editors have misbehaved, then other (non-socks) are of course free to bring them to AE, or any other board). Whether we like it or not: until we start accepting this as policy  we are supporting and encouraging his socks. As it is now: even if his socks are banned in the end, they have still won. 😖 So he will be back. The only way to break this cycle is treat him like a vandal, and make him feel extremely unwelcome.
 * (Disclosure: two of his socks enthusiastically endorsed sanctions against me, last time I was reported to AE, alas, ultimately in vain), Huldra (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Huldra, I'm not familiar with those other cases and cannot speak for those admins (whomever they are), but for my part I am not rescinding my logged warning to ZScarpia. El_C 22:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No offence User:El C, but this is about much more than a single admins actions. I am sick of seeing Icewhiz socks "winning", even when they are banned. For him there is presently only an "upside" and no "downside" to continue socking. I want to remove his "upside". (Of course, any other editor would be free to bring ZScarpia to AE, if they wanted to) I am wondering how to best proceed: a RfC, perhaps? Huldra (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, Huldra, but I'm getting the sense you haven't read what I've written regarding this very same proposal (at the top of this subsection). There, I noted that ACDS (specifically, WP:ACDS) is an ArbCom procedure, not a community policy. So it'd be more along the lines of asking the Committee to amend it at WP:ARCA than at an RfC. El_C 23:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, User:El C; I am not really a policy-geek. So from the above I understand that I have to go to WP:ARCA, and there persuade the arb.com to rescind any sanctions that were initiated by Icewhiz? (Also; I don't know the details of all the sanctions: some might have merit. But again; others are free to report them). Huldra (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Damn those maniacs at https://www.arb.com/ have done it again! Erm, sorry. Anyway, I'm not a policy geek either, but I contribute to arbitration enforcement a lot (obviously), so I think that'd be the way to go. But, again, I'm not sure a blanket rescinding / retroactive-refiling makes sense, though I can appreciate the impulse behind wanting to do that in light of these insane revelations. El_C 23:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * AE sanctions an also be overturned by a clear consensus at AN or AE itself; there's no reason that couldn't be used to overturn large numbers of sanctions at once, assuming that consensus could actually be reached. I would suggest starting with that (probably at AN, since while it would only apply to the listed sanctions it would still be precedent-setting in a way that would probably be good to get broad community consensus for.) It's also possible to continue an appeal to ArbCom from AN or AE, but not the reverse; ArbCom is meant to be the court of last resort, after all. Going through them is only really necessary if AN / AE fails to reach a consensus or if we want to change the fundamental rules of AE; it isn't needed for overturning specific cases, or even for something like "overturn the following list of sanctions stemming from cases started by IceWhiz socks." --Aquillion (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's probably more. Off the top of my head: Astral Leap for example proposed a succesful indef for this user (Zezen): AN discussion. And then there is some stuff that's beyond fixing, for example, earlier this year, one of Ice's socks succesfully got two newbie editors blocked (SPI link) - they had the misfortunte of being interested in an article Ice was trying to gut. They were eventually unblocked, but to little avail - they were already scared off Wikipedia and went inactive shortly afterward. How can we prevent Ice from discouraging more newbies whose POV don't match his and who are unlucky enough to attract his attention? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz is an excellent manipulator, capable of writing narratives in a way hard to recognize is a lie. He was capable of turning any gaffe of a given editor into something enormously sinful. Not always, because people aren't stupid here, but sometimes he succeeded, like with these two new accounts he chased away. Thankfully, folks are better informed of that individual now. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

When I served my 1-year 'ban' (2013-14), I did so faithfully. No evade editing of any kind & no socks. Therefore, you can understand why I've no sympathy for sock-masters & a lot of sympathy for those who may have ended up blocked/banned, because of sockmasters. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem: if his socks reported a legitimate problem, and the account he reported remains blocked or gets unblocked and eventually reblocked, he will be encouraged to continue. Allow these users to edit freely, eventually there will be enough to destroy parts of Wikipedia. 2A02:14F:1FB:848C:51AA:534A:F998:3874 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If his socks reported a real problem, then this will either be pointed out during the subsequent discussion, or the problem editors will get themselves in trouble again once they have the rope and show that they don't deserve a second chance. On the other hand, WP:DENY and WP:BANREVERT are a thing. Ice is pursuing a war of attrition in which he has nothing to lose, and all to gain (we can't sanction him further, but he can get his "enemies" sanctioned). Ze has scored a number of victories through his socks. Rolling back at least some if not all of his victories would be a real blow to him and could even, hopefully, discourage him from socking again. While this thread has seen an expected amount of pointless peanut gallery comments if not worse, the idea to review all of Ice's victories with the aim of undoing some or all of them is emerging to me as a surprising but quite constructive outcome of this discussion - thank you to those who brainstormed it! --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If he reports a genuine problematic user; a different user reports the same problematic user in a different location; and an admin takes steps just based on the second report while unaware of the first, then Ice will see this as a victory even though in reality he had nothing to do with it. Between genuine reports, and users who get blocked before his sock is discovered and never come back after, he will have no problem gaining many victories; a few failures may not discourage him. 2A02:14F:1FB:848C:1CA3:4DD6:B450:CAEA (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Break 2

 * Strange to see Eostrix trying to make their case at Wikipediocracy, a forum in which two sitting arbs post to regularly alongside multiple admins and established editors — though I suppose it's possible that it's a Joe Job. Hopefully, it's okay to mention on-wiki that they (?) are currently mounting a defense there. And to say: stay vigilant, Vigilantses! These are The Days of the Week. El_C 17:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s so strange.. why not here? Is his talk page locked for him to edit? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Lomrjyo (publican) ( taxes ) 19:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Their account is globally locked anyway, so they can't even log in anywhere; if I understand right, that would make their only "official" venue for appeals here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * IHateAccounts made a similar plea on Wikipediocracy a few months ago, with a supposed "SkepticAnonymous" account also turning up to back them. I don't think many believed them, and I doubt Eostrix/Icewhiz will get much sympathy either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Especially as - WPO being as efficient as usual - someone has turned up an edit that is very difficult to explain... Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep. This sort of thing is why some of us participate there. There are some pretty damn good sleuths over there who find the most obscure things sometimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. It seems pretty clear it was a good block, he was an Icewhiz sock. Doug Weller  talk 10:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Man, a lot happened in that WPO thread since I've written the above! El_C 12:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this? Someone created it on Oct.23/21. GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think WP:RBI. El_C 16:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Most likely created for a joke - GizzyCatBella  🍁  16:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason Icewhiz doesn't have a page at WP:Long-term abuse? I'd say his abuse his fairly long-term and it might help catch future sock puppets.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Though I understand this is a somewhat controversial view, I think having LTA pages is actually quite counterproductive. I would be opposed to making an LTA page about him. It would just let him hide easier, and show that he's getting under our skin. We have plenty of veteran editors who know just what to look for to find Icewhiz. LTA pages are a major WP:BEANS issue, wherein everything we compile on an LTA is one more way they can go under the radar, and its a sort of trophy to others. Personally, I am quite in favor of simply removing all such LTA pages. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , frankly, it's because LTA pages (which I don't like to start with - I think they are a sort of perverse "reward" to the people who cause us problems) are only useful for our less-savvy LTAs. Icewhiz knows enough about Wikipedia that they can find the LTA page, and now we've handed them a list of things not to do. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Like the others, I'm of the opinion that LTA pages are mostly useless. The majority of them are outdated monuments overhyping vandals who probably don't even edit anymore. Several users listed at WMF Global Ban Policy/List don't have LTA pages, and I think that's OK. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 23:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm in the anti-LTA camp. I'm not sure I buy the "reward" aspect, but without a doubt, LTA pages just teach socks how to improve their game.  I agree that these sorts of notes need to be kept, but not out in the open.  Now that I'm a CU, I have access to the private CU wiki for those sorts of notes.  When I was just a clerk, I kept my own private notes; a practice which I understand is officially frowned upon but commonly employed.  It makes sense to me that there should be a central place where SPI clerks and admins could share information which is non-confidential (in the WMF-non-disclosure sense) yet still not something you want to be completely public for WP:BEANS reasons.  I suggested that once and got shot down, but I still think it's a good idea, and should be combined with deleting all the current LTA pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin (though I would love to be one, one day). I would absolutely hate this, as it'd become impossible to notice LTA abuse to notify admins when it happens; removing LTA pages would be devastating. Given the lack of active administrators, I think that would be a terrible idea. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Rockstone, if you're around a lot (I'm not these days), you get used to the LTA's and get to be able to recognize them.  The LTA pages are entertaining reading when you first find them, but I'm unconvinced they're of much value.  2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:D4A (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Catching the socks 'behind doors', is best. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Waste of time for us to engage with it. Anything that Eostrix evidences as different behaviour to Icewhiz socks is simply evidence that Icewhiz was aware of that pattern of behaviour and deliberately altering it for that account. If the difference is equally explicable by Eostrix being Icewhiz and Eostrix not being Icewhiz, then it is of no use to consider. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have just spent a couple hours researching this matter, and am deeply shaken. There are a number of shocking facts here, but I will reserve further thoughts for now. My congrats to ArbCom and the member who pursued the sockpuppet investigation. This person made a difference, and for me the bright spot is that I find myself inspired by their work and determination. Bravo! Jusdafax (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Constructive idea? Review sanctions orchestrated by Icewhiz's socks
It was suggested above that we may want to review lasting sanctions (ranging from indef to topic bans and warnings) orchestrated by Icewhiz's socks (i.e. handed out as a result of his socks either reporting people or being very vocal in support of said sanctions). Perhaps doing so would be the most productive outcome of this discussion, not to mention, if the review would vacate some of those sanctions, we would be doing something that actively denies Icewhiz their most important "wins". Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Piotrus - I expressed my opinion here, but I don't view myself as an expert around here. Reflecting on the reservation veteran administrators have to unconditional dismissal of sanctions orchestrated by Icewhiz's socks I believe reviewal of all of them is a sound idea. But is it doable? So much work. GizzyCatBella  🍁  07:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * AN wouldn't explode from a few more threads, it's not like we have more than a half a dozen cases to review, I think... all in day's (month's) work. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought this was what the thread that was hatted was exploring; it had convinced me that this might be at least worth exploring; and I thought that was the only discussion that was leading somewhere productive (looking to the future), but then it was hatted by arbcom as off-topic, so what do I know? Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Determine which AE's were significantly influenced by Icewhiz socks and then lodge individual appeals at AE or AN. It probanly isn't that many, I'm sure either noticeboard will be able to manage it. No absolute obligation to first go to the admin who imposed the sanction, as they can't unilaterally overturn an AE/AN decision anyway. But mildly, it would be courteous to let them know about the appeal(s). -- Euryalus (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's off-topic to the extent that it's not something Arbcom can do or organise (it's outside it's remit and will almost certainly take more resource than they have to spare), so unless they have any non-public information that would indicate that it's a bad idea (I can't think what that would be, and I imagine that they would have said something by now if they did). So I think the best thing to do would be to coordinate this on a page elsewhere, with pointers to that page here and at AN. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Transclude the section(s) here to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, maybe? Or someplace else? Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't transclude this section – this talk page section is about the announcement arbcom made and is certainly not designed to be a decision-making forum. If you need to reference this discussion, consider linking to it or quoting it if you must. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It was veering into off-topic stuff, and ultimately it's not something that can be resolved by discussions on this board anyway. My advice is to take it to WP:AN for the reasons I outlined in that discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hatted as off-topic as a clerk action, and correctly because none of that was about Eostrix. Can make a request at AN or AE if you want, but one of the admins has already directly declined to review the sanctions he has imposed and this is entirely pointless here so hat it yourself or watch it be hatted again as a clerk action. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also this surely doesn't need more discussion. There's what seems to be a list of relevant cases at User_talk:Huldra. If anyone wants to appeal any of them then just do it at AN or AE with a note indicating they feel the sanction was unduly influenced by Icewhiz socking and would like another look. Add a link to this entire thread if necessary, but there's no need for anything more elaborate than that. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully all those cases begun by Icewhiz's socks, will be reviewed. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

 * Original announcement

proc, I know this is an ongoing concern of yours, but no discussion here can change the existence of the CU log. If you have data privacy concerns, please take them up with WMF Legal. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem trusting them with the CU bit, but I'm wondering, do they get any "training" on how to use the bit? Seeing data is easy, interpreting it, less so.  Just curious.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They're all stewards, and probably the core steward function these days is locking socks, so my guess would be that they all know how to use CU – probably better than a lot of us, in fact! Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to what KevinL said, looking at the stats for loginwiki CU: Martin Urbanec has made 11,875 loginwiki checks this year, Sotiale 2,857, and Tks4Fish 1,001 (you can find this data at Stewards/CheckUser statistics for loginwiki). However, in reality its slightly more complicated than that, because Steward requests/Checkuser also exists, and if you look into the archives for that you'll see Sotiale answering probably a few hundred requests just this year. So yes, I hope that with between them some >15K checks this year they know how to use the tool ;) -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  18:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In reality of course the number is even higher, because this doesn't account for one request needing multiple checks and/or any checking done on wikis where they also have local CU -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  18:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks for the responses.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Asked the same Q on meta, but does anyone know whether steward scrutineers run the Checkusers on loginwiki/votewiki or are they ran locally on enwiki? (I'd guess the latter, hence the temporary CU perms, but just checking) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , if memory serves, locally on enwiki (though they also see some basic CU data on votewiki). Loginwiki ain't going to be much help here. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm guessing these checks are logged in the enwiki CU log then? So are you (an enwiki CU) able to see the log of checks made by steward scrutineers (e.g. from the 2020 cycle)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , confirmed - I pulled up Tks4Fish's CU log (since I remember they were a scrute last year) and see a long list of checks marked as ACE2020 election scrutineering. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Last Q: I understand the log is stored forever and it's trivial to piece together the user and their IP (via successive entries, similarly timed, by the same CU in the log) . So when stewards run their scrutineering checks, am I correct in thinking the IP of those editors (1887 editors in 2020) becomes permanently logged, and can be seen by any of the 50 enwiki CUs? If you wanted to view the IP of an editor who has voted in ACE before you could do this without having your request logged right, since you'd just be browsing the log of past checks?
 * I suppose as a concrete example, are you able to determine my IP (in December 2020, since I voted in that election) just by looking at the CU log? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We can not confirm or deny any individual checks that have been done in the past as part of a round of ArbCom elections since they are covered under our NDA -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 20:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, can you answer the part before the concrete example? (the general question) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think despite the NDA mentioned by Guerillero that I can safely say it is not possible for any enwiki CU to use the CU log to figure out every voter's IP address. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I ask which part of what I wrote doesn't hold? I mean we held elsewhere that the result of a check done by an enwiki CU will have the username and its associated IP(s) stored, so one can trivially ascertain that account's IP by browsing the log. So why can't this be done with checks done by stewards (using local CU perms)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * While it is sometimes true that IPs and usernames can be connected by an astute observer, it is not true in all cases since the log has a free text field that needs at least one character to be entered. What was entered into the log by a CU in any check is covered under our NDA. Any further concerns about the CU Log should be pointed to WMF Legal. --  Guerillero  Parlez Moi 21:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to make a point, I'm genuinely curious if what I wrote is correct, or understand why not if it isn't. An arbitrator said above it isn't possible; why not? I suspect it's faster/easier to get an answer by one of the 50 CUs than from WMF Legal -- surely this isn't a question unsuitable for public discussion? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that PR is asking something that must be directed at WMF Legal. That's not fair; PR is asking a reasonable question, not trying to change the existence of the CU log.  My understanding has always been that scrutineers don't CU everyone who votes in an arbcom election, only the ones that raise some concern. If that's correct, I think it answers PR's question.  If they're CU'ing everyone, then... now that the horse has long left the barn... I object. I would be interested to know how many CU checks were done in the last few elections. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to hat this entirely as a meta issue, but Floq raises a valid point; HOWEVER, the CU log only contains the account (or IP) being checked, the date, and the reason. There is ZERO additional information stored. If I search User:Example at 21:10 on 2 Nov 2011, because they are suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:XYZ, that is the entirety of what shows up in the logs. "The logs are there forever!" is a bogeyman that means absolutely nothing. If (and I am legitimately saying this not having looked at any past logs) scrutineers check 100 accounts in a row, and find nothing that would cause them to check an IP, then all that will show up in the CU logs are those 100 names. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is in the public log: Tks4Fish (37), Martin Urbanec (8), and Mardetanha (0) Guerillero  Parlez Moi 21:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I had no idea that existed. If I have further questions, I'll try to think of a better place to ask; I know this isn't it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that largely answers my concern then. I was under the impression you checked all voters (I can't recall where I read that). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's actually from a further time ago but said it most recently at  (and the CU data of every voter in an ArbCom election is revealed to three stewards & since the equivalent is revealed for thousands of people each year in an election.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The access scrutineers have on votewiki is different and temporary. This votewiki access - not enwiki access which is what ArbCom did here and which many of the answers above have been about - is what Tony was referring to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirming what said is what I meant. Votewiki provides access to the CU data at the time of casting a vote. Local access is needed to make heads or tails of the limited data it provides. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * For anyone interested, here the what data is available for each vote directly on securepoll: File:SecurePollSample-2019-11-26.PNG. Reading that data on securepoll is part of scrutinizing, and we trust that the stewards don't retain copies beyond however long it is necessary. —  xaosflux  Talk 23:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to ^, votewiki's voter view list displays naked UA/IP combination in the voter list table. And that was how I caught a sock in 2018. (See my checkuserlog - not that much because referred to local CU.) &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 00:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Query about DS amendments
Hello,

Earlier this year, after the AP2-amendment, several arbs noted that we shouldn't submit a raft of DS-amendment requests (especially on the seldom-used ones) because we were due a major DS-rule changes. That seemed reasonable. However, it looks like we are now at the stage where those changes would seem to be delayed to the next community. Is that a reasonable interpretation - would be good to know before we're into December. Cheers :) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You're correct that this committee is unlikely to do any work on DS this year. Ironically I did some work yesterday to help incoming arbs get up to speed on the progress to date and also wrote out a proposed timeline. If that timeline is accepted, it would have clarifications/amendsments/revocations happening early in the year. But that hasn't been discussed by any other arbs, let alone the new arbs, and so it's entirely possible that the actual process will look different. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Level 1 desysop of Epbr123

 * Original announcement


 * A legacy admin whose last 50 edits go back to 2013. Presumably another case of a weak or reused password. Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2FA should be mandatory for admins. Yeah, I know all the excuses.  Some admins can't afford it.  WMF could  buy them a token generator as a grant.  Some admins live in areas where the required technology is illegal.  We make an exception for them.  Some people find it annoying or inconvenient.  Well, tough.  People have been doing 2FA for decades.  It's not rocket science anymore. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It’s not particularly difficult. firefly  ( t · c ) 09:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (Side note: Cripes...if Epbr123 is now considered a "legacy admin" despite being a newer one than I am, then I'm even more "legacy" than he is. :o ) Acalamari 04:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was being a bit harsh there. Passing RfA in 2008 was certainly harder than say, 2003 or 2004. But Epbr123 does seem to have made only token edits in recent years. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Roysmith, are there actually places where TOTP tokens are illegal? Part of their design is that they can only be used for authentication, not secrecy.  Plus, hardware tokens are way cheap, and it's possible to run a TOTP app on phones old enough to be found in garbage cans now. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was also surprised by this point. Could you give an example of a country where that is the case, ? Genuinely curious now. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging Risker who has opined knowledgeably and at length on the 2FA issue previously. One issue not yet mentioned here is that 2FA is not a fire-and-forget technology, it requires ongoing support for users who get locked out accidentally, need help setting it up and/or migrating. The WMF's current implementation is apparently particularly needy in this regard (although I don't understand the issues enough to explain to anyone else why) and its support capacity is not even remotely close to that required for even all admins, let alone all users. In theory mandatory 2FA for admins is a good idea, but there are far too many practical issues that mean it's a bad idea in practice, at least currently. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Incidentally, I was migrating to a new phone yesterday, and I had my son helping me (I would probably not be able to do it on my own, or it would take forever). We spent quite some time figuring out that I should first disable my 2FA and then enable it again using the new device, it was not on the instruction page and I was not sure what would happen when I disable 2FA.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To an extent, that's due to your choice of 2FA tool. E.g., the Google version is locked to a device so you have to do as you described. Other tools, like Authy, allow you to create an encrypted central database that can be shared across devices. So you activate on new device, deactivate on old device, without having to worry about switching if off / on on Wikimedia (or other places you use it). QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am using FreeOTP, which is the first recommended option.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2FA implementation on Wikipedia is very poor. Last time I used it I almost locked myself out of my account, although I was using the security key option (I'm told the TOTP one is slightly less buggy). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's start from the basic premise that 2FA is widely considered best practice for security. If WMF implements it badly, then they should fix their implementation. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, unless and until they do we can't realistically change our policies to required it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC) The 2FA attached to the MediaWiki software is already abused. It was initially intended to be for those with root access only (and was written after one of those few people had their account compromised). Then it got expanded to developers generally, then to WMF staff generally. The common thread there was that these were all people who knew each other and had a personal relationship with one of the few people who could reset their 2FA. It was not, under any circumstances, written for the thousands of administrators across all projects, nor was it written for volunteer editors, and it shows. There is zero support for this extension. When I say zero, I mean it. The software is entirely maintained by volunteer developers; there is not a single WMF developer assigned to this project. There is not a single WMF staffer whose work assignment is resetting 2FA, or supporting people with problems with 2FA. If I screw up the 2FA attached to my security software, I have multiple routes to work on fixing it, in multiple languages. In fairness, given that just about every single type of security software out there includes 2FA in their own package (and I include password keepers in that), I'm not sure that the emphasis is in the right place. We should be encouraging people to take security seriously no matter what site they're on; in fact, the majority of compromised accounts are because people didn't follow very basic security practices, especially on other sites. There have been some minor improvements to MediaWiki 2FA over the last few years, but they do not include user support, multilingual support, 24/7 support, or even easily located and understood instructions for use of 2FA. There remain serious issues for the overwhelming majority of projects, especially those where editors don't have access to multiple devices or speak no English. Seriously folks, just turn it on in your security system; I'll guarantee you'll have a better experience.  Risker (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll just throw in here on top of all that we had our own local password strength policy from 2015 until 2019 when it was superseded by the global password policy and the "special circular" that was posted on every single admins talk page in 2019. It wouldn't exactly be easy to hack an account that was actually following these policies and practices, 2FA or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Risker, I think there must be some confusion here. Root access, or any direct access to the servers, is done through SSH entirely outside of the MediaWiki software so doesn't (and couldn't) use this 2FA system.
 * There is not a single WMF staffer whose work assignment is resetting 2FA, or supporting people with problems with 2FA.
 * In practice the Trust and Safety team can and do reset on-wiki 2FA: if you look at their Phabricator workboard and search for "2FA" you can see how many reset requests they deal with, and that most are acted on fairly promptly. However as a small team with many other pressing concerns, I doubt they would want a huge expansion in the number of requests.
 * You're correct that there are currently no developers assigned to maintaining and improving the software itself (technically known as OATHAuth). Personally I use it for both my volunteer and staff accounts, and appreciate the extra security, but agree there could be improvements to the experience. the wub "?!"  22:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your response. It isn't actually written into T&S's job descriptions, and they themselves don't do the work; they have to flag down a suitably credentialed developer to do it. (As an aside, that's a pretty remarkable number of requests for assistance, given that there aren't that many people with it enabled, and developers/WMF staff wouldn't be posting it on phabricator, they'd just flag down a suitably credentialed person on IRC.) I was told by the initial developer (it was developed about 10 years ago) of the reason for its development, but I am not in a position to dispute how root access/direct access to the servers happens in 2021, so I trust your assertion that it is not relevant today. Risker (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't actually know, but it was brought up once in a prior discussion so I was just trying to head off that diversion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a damn shame...  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I realize this is kind of pedantic, but something is jacked up with the grammar of Supporting: CaptainEek, Casliber, Maxim For the Arbitration Committee Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to my fellow arbs for their quick action on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Beeblebrox, well handled by those arbs. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Until there's smooth resetting, 24/365.25 support from the WMF, in every language that projects have admins in, then 2FA must not be made mandatory for admins. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't have 7x24 support for admins now. Why should we require it if we add 2FA? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We do, it's called "Forgotten Password?" which is automated and works 24/7. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  17:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone's focusing on 2FA, but I think that we really ought to reconsider our standards for administrative inactivity. As mentioned previously their last 50 edits go back to 2013, and their last logged admin action seems to have occurred around the same time. If someone hasn't used their admin tools in 8 and a bit years then they shouldn't still have them IMO, it's more of a security hole than a benefit. 192.76.8.75 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, it's absurd that we had an admin who was this inactive, making only a few edits a year just to keep the tools when they clearly haven't been interested in actual editing for at least 8 years. In my humble opinion, more should be done to desysop inactive admins as a security risk, and one edit a year shouldn't cut it for "activity". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The current rule is at least 1 edit or admin action in the past 12 months, per WP:INACTIVITY. Changing that to "at least 1 admin action in the past 12 months" seems perfectly reasonable.  If you haven't performed an admin action in a year, it's hard to argue that you still have a need for the tools. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The stickler is how you count "admin action" as always. Many admin actions are not logged, so as long as it accounts for that, I would be for that.  It would require a new RFC, which is a bit of a time sink, however.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You count them the same way xtools does it, you look at the logs. Sure, some things are not logged (editing a protected page, viewing a deleted version, etc) but we're nit-picking.  If somebody has a need to be viewing deleted pages on a regular basis but nothing else, they can set themselves a calendar alert to perform a logged action once a year to show they're still active. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What about weighing in as an admin at WP:AE, or even potentially taking actions that don't involve directly using the tools, such as warnings, topic-bans, applying AE restrictions to pages and so on? There is a lot of work admins do (often important, difficult, time-consuming work) that doesn't involve directly using their tools or permissions in any fashion; but de-adminning them would stop them from doing that.  I think that is what Dennis Brown was talking about. --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would consider "admin actions" to be broadly defined - things like editing fully protected pages should be included. This is a detail of the implementation rather than a fundamental flaw in the idea and is exactly the kind of thing an RFC should consider. In this case it wouldn't make any difference how you define "admin actions" because this account hasn't done anything approaching an admin action for at least 8 years, their contributions seem to have consisted entirely of archiving their talk page, adding links, some category edits and a couple of copyedits (and I know there are dozens and dozens of admin accounts in similar situations out there). 192.76.8.75 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as being part of a Crat chat is a Crat function, participating at WP:AE is an admin function, but doesn't always generate a log. I participate regularly but log few actions.  Of course, I log enough regardless, but telling someone to log in and "do an action" kind of defeats the purpose.  We don't need to tell people to game the system, we need a better way to view actions that are admin in nature so we DON'T have guys taking actions just to keep the bits.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest at least raising the limit from 1 to 10 edits or actions. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  00:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we suggesting relying entirely on an automated script to remove admins? (Do we do that currently?) I don't think we should and I don't think we have to.  It seems to me that any action that requires admin status, including stuff like formal warnings, should qualify as activity; admins are volunteers and as long as they're doing something useful they should keep the bit.  What we can do is use a script to highlight admins who are possibly under some tightened activity requirements, then put them somewhere where they can be manually skimmed (there are not going to be that many each month, and by definition their activity will be low enough to be easily reviewed.)  Easy enough to glance over someone's edits and see if they are actively being an admin or not when they have eg. less than 20 edits in the past year.  I think we should define admin actions broadly, but that doesn't have to be a bar to tightening the rules in other ways and applying them more strictly.  It would require some work, but not too much, and, well...  we have a bunch of people here concerned with this; surely some of them would be willing to spend a few minutes a year glancing over sparse edit histories from low-activity admins to see if they're actually inactive. --Aquillion (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the admin inactivity criteria are a not-fit-for-purpose nonsense; this turned up in a discussion the other day when User:Kicking222 turned up in a discussion to be abusive to another editor and it was pointed out that it was unbecoming from an admin ... who hasn't used the tools (apart from a few edits to protected pages) for eight years. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't require "proof of activity", just "proof of life". The last time I looked at activity requirements, I got the sense a majority of the community would object to "admins must have at least one edit in 24 of the previous 48 calendar months or else run a new RFA" as being too strenuous a requirement. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 17:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement to go through a new RFA if you're desysoped due to inactivity, you can request restoration of your rights at the Bureaucrat's noticeboard and they will be returned after a standard holding time (I think it's normally 48 hours?). 192.76.8.75 (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes ... that is why I was considering making a proposal to change the rules. There's no point in having inactivity rules if you can just request to ignore the inactivity rules every year and do nothing else. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 17:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misunderstood your comment. 192.76.8.75 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would've thought the same, but see Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_46 where an eligible admin was effectively told 'no restoration yet'. So I'm not sure what you describe is necessarily the community position at the moment (also see Requests for comment/Change to sysop activity requirements). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding that, please see WT:ADMIN. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been banging my head on this particular wall for years, progress has been painfully slow. I wrote the five-year rule (if you get desysopped for inactivity and did not use admin tools in the five years proceeding that, you have to go back to RFA to get tools back) to see if it was even possible to make the tiniest change to the policy, and turns out it was, if you aim low. Every single time we see the mysterious argument that that there are these mythical admins who are doing admin work, but somehow only in invisible ways that are never logged, for years at a time, and they totally exist, there may be upwards of two of them so we can't change the rules. I support any effort to make the rules more reasonable than the laughably low standard we have now, but if you're going to go there, come correct or don't come at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to keep on tightening the requirements of activity, while I agree there is security risks and issues regarding what the admin knows about the "current" WP, I'd also point out that notifying and removing/restoring etc also cause inconvenience etc and I'd also point out that unless anything was oversighted the only edit made was one to a semi-protected article which could have been done by any autconfirmed editor (though perhaps the edit filter may have got them). Inactive accounts are also less likely to be compromised that active ones anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I discuss in my essay on admin inactivity, such a case of inactivity isn't uncommon—there are a lot of admins, for whom it's not unreasonable to state that they aren't meaningfully active.  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   20:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from all of the reasonable comments above mine, I still don't get why a person would go through our list of admins, find the ones who are inactive, hack their password, all to post a racist comment that was detected pretty much immediately and reverted and then the admin account was blocked. Seems like an awful lot of legwork for temporary vandalism. We're lucky that they were so clumsy. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that this is the scenario that happened and not that we had a longtime admin go off the deep end one day. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless and until we hear anything to the contrary, I think that's what we have to assume. Speaking of assumptions, looking at the other parts of the deleted edit I get impression that the responsible party was likely too young have been editing Wikipedia in 2008, let alone writing featured articles or passing RFA. I would also be surprised if they had any interest in Kate Bush or settlements in Kent. If I'm correct in that, it would seem the motivation was more likely to prove that they could do it rather than anything long-term. I've been wrong before though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * being unable to comprehend why trolls do the things they do is a sure sign that your brain is in good working order. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Other possible modes of attack include deep packet inspection using spoofed HTTPS sessions, or viral keystroke loggers installed on public machines. I don't know that either of these were used here, but threats like that are the reason I maintain a separate account (RoySmith-Mobile) which does not have admin rights.  If the credentials to that get hacked, at least it's not a big deal.  I suggest all admins do the same if they ever need to log in on a device they don't have complete control over. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also possible that the attacker did not know this was an administrator account and was simply trying to compromise any Wikipedia accounts they could go after to vandalize pages. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Either they didn't know or they didn't care, since as far as can be ascertained they did not use the tools. Indeed, one does wonder why they bothered. This clearly wasn't some "white hat" hack aimed at pointing out security flaws. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Crime of opportunity, I suppose. They probably had a username and password from another website's leak and figured they'd try it here, not caring whose account it was or what rights it had. All the more reason to have unique passwords everywhere. clpo13(talk) 01:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This - as the actions were not related to admin tools, it was likely just a normal leaked password account takeover - someone specifically targeting an admin account would have used it to do something else. — xaosflux  Talk 13:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be purely academic and a waste of time, but a closer look at the editing history might help (or just create further conjecture), but users like Epbr123 rarely leave suddenly without providing any clues. He last edited his user page in Dec 2010. 11 years is a very long time for anyone not to edit their user page. Also, unusual for someone who always kept impeccable archives until May 2012, his last genuine edit to his talk page was 29 June 2012. As recently as July 2021‎ he (he or the account user) mysteriously ‘archived’ his talk page contents by simply blanking it again, which has been happening fairly regularly once or twice a year since he 'left'. The account therefore appears to have been obviously compromised, but by someone who has a bit of knowledge about how Wikipedia works ('email this user' has also been disabled). There are several possible scenarios: maybe the computer or laptop (it won't have been a smart phone - they weren't around in those days) was lost, left on a plane, stolen,  sold, or otherwise disposed of while still in the 'keep me logged in for 365 days' mode with the PW  on autofill and a window open on a Wikipedia page. It's still curious that he wouldn't ever use Wikipedia again or look at his user page or talk page; if he had lost his PW along with his old computer, he woudn't need to log in to see the current comments. If it happened to me and I were still alive, still an admin, and still interested in editing, I would probably send an email to Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying it might be the case that sometime in between 2010 and 2013 the account was compromised? The account was at least somewhat regularly preforming "admin" actions until February 2013, the last log ignoring the 2015 page move was in February 2013 though there were a few rollbacks in March. If someone drastically reduces their activity that isn't in my books anything to be concerned with as its quite possible they have had a change in circumstances like having to look after someone etc. If someone suddenly disappears completely like Elockid that is more concerning and may indicate something bad has happened like death or lifechanging brain damage. If someone used to keep impeccable archives or edit their user page etc and they don't later this could just be because their mind is on other things. In any case I find it odd that someone would hack an admin account and not even use the admin privileges, its a wonder why they didn't just create and account and get autoconfirmed and do that? Indeed reporting such loss of security would obviously be responsible but I don't know if action would be taken unless checkuser could show the person reporting had the same IP (or similar) as the account otherwise anyone could make malicious reports to get admins locked.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying anything except that it is all very unusual and that someone with more time on their hands might want to gig deeper. Of course there are some obvious reasons why a user might suddenly disappear but I was rather more sensitive about it than the way you spelled them out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

 * Original announcement


 * Thanks for a smooth confirmation review process, Committee members. And thanks to all the participants who contributed to the discussion, which was generally good, the outcome looks good... Participation rewards to all! El_C 13:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the Functionaries email list

 * Original announcement

How common was it for the functionaries list to get something that should have been sent to Arbcom instead? Moneytrees🎄Talk/CCI guide 20:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather infrequently, but it was one of the reasons for making this move. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it wasn't a huge issue and we took our sweet time coming to a decision just in case there was some unintended side effect we were not considering, but none became evident. I think this would be a good thing to add to next month's admin newsletter as even while we were discussing this I saw some admins advising blocked users to contact the functionaries, which was never actually correct advice but is even more so now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been added by another editor (which I agree with). Will be published in the next newsletter. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally it was someone asking for a block review once a quarter (if that.) Wasn't a huge volume, but its been a while since I've seen a useful email come through to the list from a non-member. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Will there be an automatic reply when a non-member attempts to send an email to the list, or will the original email just disappear into the internet void and leave them hanging? Is there a way to enable an auto-reply like that if it doesn't already exist? DanCherek (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the intention is to set it like the internal oversight-l list and bounce a notice that it's a closed list. Primefac (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at some alternative messages (I'm one of the listadmins), but I think it will probably refer senders to the Arbcom mailing list. It shouldn't increase any spam to the arbcom list, and I suspect that some people will realize that we aren't a pressure point to try to get a different decision than they'd get from Arbcom. Risker (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't affect reporting incidents to the Oversight team, does it? I assume that is a different list than the functionaries list. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 06:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, that's an entirely different email address. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Épine unblocked

 * Original announcement

Rather than just cryptically saying Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Épine (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction., since there appear to be no privacy issues, why not just say in the 1st place in the Original announcement what Maxim & 192.76.8.80 said above? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Was the Checkuser issue (whatever it was) unfounded? Or forgiven?  Or none of our business? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking without my CU hat on or clerk hat on (I haven't looked at the CU data or know anything more than what's onwiki), if it was unfounded then I doubt the arbs would place a one account restriction as part of the unblock. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good grief, I’m an idiot. It was right there in front of my face. Thanks for helping a fool. —Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam, that's a fair question, and the best answer to it would be that the Checkuser issue was forgiven. There was usage of multiple accounts that arguably was toeing the line between appropriate/inappropriate at first, and then crossed that line to clearly inappropriate (as to be caught—usually when a Checkuser gets interested like this, then chances are a line was crossed). That said, this isn't a case of someone creating a bunch of obvious inappropriate accounts, as most appeals of Checkuser blocks are, but just one other account, and this result is very much "please don't do this again and stick to one account in the future".  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   00:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks Maxim, I appreciate the detail, although I feel kind of nosy for asking. -Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * looking at the block log of the blocking administrator the suspected sock account here appears to be user:Folkloria, which from a quick peek at the contributions is an obvious sock of somebody (how many newcomers create a fancy global user page as their first edit?). A comparison of the contributions shows a lot of article space overlap as well, especially on the article Zhiar Ali. I suspect this is a case of the sock puppetry being forgiven, rather than the checkuser being wrong. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * you’re better at this detective work than me. I’m sure you’re right. —Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unblocked a confirmed socke-master? Ok. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We can consider that for the future. If I take the "why" as a non-rhetorical question, the reason would be that ArbCom started posting such announcements about unblocks that have associated restrictions circa 2019, and they've always kept to this brief format.  Maxim <small style="color:blue;">(talk)   14:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a totally reasonable question @Bison X. Building on what Maxim wrote, getting agreement before an arb action is its own thing. Having formulaic writing for how to actually implement the action removes one barrier to resolving something because once there is four net votes on an appeal it can be done. Contrast this with the announcement about functionaries which required several rounds of drafting before there was general approval to post. Maxim's comment here is Maxim representing his own views as an individual arb and thus doesn't need to get "sign-off" from the committee. So while it's not unofficial it doesn't quite have the same weight as the original announcement and thus is a whole lot easier to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:ACE2021 results
The results of the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections have been posted. Thank you to all of the candidates, voters, and the election team for your participation. — xaosflux  Talk 23:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

El Sandifer unbanned

 * Original announcement

Welcome back. From a fellow reinstated (2014) editor. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for someone to unprotect Sandifer's userpage, given it is currently fully protected, and remove the ban notice. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, good spot. Primefac (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty close vote, I'm interested to hear the opposing rationales (if they can be publicly disclosed...) Moneytrees🎄Talk/CCI guide 18:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * They can obviously speak for themselves but big picture some arbs focused on some parts of the appeal while others focused on different parts. Depending on which part you focused on led you to different conclusions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * For what it’s worth I completely understand a reticence to unban me given the extremely narrow path I threaded in making the appeal. (In short, I continued to dispute the accuracy of the original findings while also stipulating that I intended to follow the policies I was alleged to have broken going forward.) So I can completely understand why this was a close decision—I did nothing to make it easier for them, frankly. El Sandifer (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome back. I look forward to your continued contributions to the mission of Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @El Sandifer, thank you for acknowledging that. The standard for lifting a block or ban, at least according to my rubric, is that we are reasonably assured that doing so does not pose a continued risk to the project. We were divided on whether your failure to acknowledge the behaviour that led to the ban was an indication that you were likely to repeat it. That said, I have no interest in re-litigating anything that happened in the past and I look forward to my skepticism being proven unfounded. Your comment here is somewhat reassuring. – bradv <sup style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:60%">🍁  19:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep put it well. I was genuinely torn, and ultimately took a more pessimistic view that the appeal was too focused on relitigating the past. However, I was hopeful of accepting a better appeal in the future. Like Bradv, I see El's comments here as reassuring. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I share BDD's thoughts in full. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that Sandifer is still (substantially) hosting the doxing material on their blog that got them banned, does this mean the current committee is satisfied that in spite of this they a)wont do it again, or b)that the current committee disagree with the original decision? Because if its the latter, I have a long list of terrible arbcom decisions that can be looked at. If its the former, at a minimum the community should expect someone who deliberately doxed another editor publically should remove the offending material in totality before being allowed to return. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As we attempted to convey in the vote this is a - won't do it again. I just did a second search and while the offending post remains available in archives I cannot find it on Sandifer's website. There is a post critical of ArbCom which has a deadlink to that post but that post does not contain the doxxing information that led to the ban. If you have different information please feel free to reach out to me or to the committee. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, articles are still up on my site under different urls, as my site has migrated platforms since my banning. As noted below, they were edited to comply with NewYorkBrad’s stated guidelines at the time, which I informed the committee of in an e-mail on December 1st. El Sandifer (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can’t answer for the arbcom here, but I will note that I edited the articles on my site to comply with the guidelines for what would have been acceptable that NewYorkBrad stated here following my ban: . El Sandifer (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As Barkeep has suggested, we're looking forward here, rather than backward - not looking to relitigate the original ban. That said, the information currently available on El Sandifer's website is not the same as the information that was there at the time. As she has given us her word that no further violations will occur, I believe that the ban should be lifted. @Only in death, if you would like to point us to specific violations, please do by emailing the committee. <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to see it. El shouldn't have been banned in the first place, and ArbCom banning her for what was, essentially, exposing an institutional problem on the encyclopedia that still exists to this day, always left a bad taste in the mouth. So was the excuse that it was because she supposedly outed another editor off-Wikipedia, whilst another editor in the Sexology article space was engaged in veiled pro-pedophile advocacy all over Twitter for years but it was actually socking that got him banned. Sceptre (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

2022 Arbitration Committee

 * Original announcement

My sympathies to those who've been elected & re-elected. My congratulations to those who've survived to retire ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My thanks to the outgoing arbs for their work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. It was a pleasure to serve with you all! --BDD (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I feel very fortunate to have served on a committee with the outgoing arbs, their wisdom and experience will be missed, but I also look forward to getting to know our new colleagues. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Best of luck to our new and returning arbs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you to our outgoing arbitrators – each of you have been a joy to work with. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all involved, including those who weren't elected, for putting yourself forwards to serve in what I imagine must be an arduous, frequently tedious, largely thankless, but necessary role. Hats off for stepping up. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you to everyone who offered to serve, and congratulations to those elected. Thank you also to those whose terms are ending for your service to us all :) firefly  ( t · c ) 21:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In case anyone needs it, here's a table of the new, returning, and retiring arbitrators below. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks but shouldn't WTT be under "reelected"? Because OR is actually returning from an absence. Regards So  Why  15:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox was also a re-elected incumbent, like Worm. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed that cause it bothered me too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, made a few mistakes. Thanks for fixing up the table 172.112.210.32 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Elected !! Midterm !! Re-elected !! Retiring
 * + Arbitrators
 * }
 * }
 * }

Amortias re-appointed as full clerk

 * Original announcement

Welcome back. NW1223 (Howl at me / My hunts) 01:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the team. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad to see Amortias back to regular editing and pleased to see this re-appointment. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome back ! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!  21:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding American politics 2

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motions from the declined case request Warsaw concentration camp

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Crouch, Swale

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Scientology

 * Original announcement
 * One question: why?  SN54129  18:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The full discussion is linked in the announcement. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , short version (speaking as requester): "nobody bothered to enforce it for the past eight years or so and nothing broke, so we might as well leave it to normal community processes and drop the dead letter remedy". SubjectiveNotability <sub style="margin-left:-12ex"> a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 21:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, make sense: I hadn't even noticed the case request!  SN54129  13:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. The statements made in the request for clarification are unusually good - kudos to all involved in this sensible decision. Nick-D (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair. If we haven't heavily committed to keeping the remedy enforced (which was made clear in the discussion that this is the case), and if they've managed to behave during this whole time, why not? If worse comes to worst, and if things go completely "off the deep end", the block button is only but a few clicks away. ;-) Now, if only I can manage to overcome my laziness and muster the strength to move my mouse alllll the way over to where that button is, we should be okay. ;-) Spoiler alert: I just use a script...  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   03:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. Also, those beautiful 15-zip January votes are a beautiful sight. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

 * Original announcement

Miki Filigranski unblocked

 * Original announcement

Changes to functionary team

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motions regarding discretionary sanctions topics

 * Original announcement

General comment regarding appeals to the Arbitration Committee

 * Original announcement


 * Because I know some announcements can cause speculation, I want to note that this idea was discussed on and off several times last year. By December the idea of a comment was agreed on and we decided to wait until the new committee was seated before moving forward. It genuinely is a general comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My "it genuinely is a general comment" shirt is raising a lot of questions .... --JBL (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was one of the arbs pushing for this, as I've repeatedly seen the implication that when arbcom unblocks a user, it's something akin to absolution and all their past transgressions are washed away, and they are blessed by arbcom. I don't know where anyone ever got such an idea, but it simply is not the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say you were the arb pushing for it for most of last year and if not for your efforts this statement (which I am glad we've posted) wouldn't have happened. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Suppose "Editor B" was blocked by a CU as a sock of "Editor A", and then later unblocked after appeal to Arbcom. Unless the appeal decision specifically says the original CU block was in error, then it's still the case that the CU determination that Editor A = Editor B stands? Meaning, if for example, Editor B, post-unblock, continues disputes that Editor A was previously involved with, the community can evaluate it with the understanding that the two editors are the same, despite the arbcom unblock (unless arbcom specifically says otherwise)? I believe I've seen Editor Bs argue that they're not Editor A and pointing to the unblock as proof. Levivich 20:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For recent committees it would mean 1 of 2 things. Either Arbcom agreed Editor B was in fact not Editor A or Editor B acknowledged being Editor A in their appeal (as normally some level of responsibility is needed for any kind of ROPE/SO unblock) and but is now saying different things onwiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, in the past, we haven't been 100% consistent about distinguishing between unblocks "on the merits" and unblocks for ROPE/SO. As just an arbitrary example, RandomCanadian was unblocked on the merits, though the block log entry only states "successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee". If you have any questions in a particular case, just ask. We'll make an effort to be much more consistent about this in the future. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, to be clear, are we saying that a recently unblocked user and another blocked user that was associated with them aren't the same person? Black Kite (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. The discussion has been ongoing for a while and is unrelated to any recently unblocked user. There is no hidden meaning to the announcement. An unblock by ArbCom is an unblock, not a free pass for future behaviour. Cabayi (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that "No", they aren't the same user, or "No", I'm not answering that question? In which case is it possible to answer that question? (I will understand if the answer is still "No".) Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather than talking in code, perhaps you'd like to send an email to your favorite arb (or the committee as a whole) asking the specific? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * When would such a reblock cross the line into wheel-warring? I think it's relatively common-sense that Committee unblocks are not carte blanche for policy violations and it's obviously a good idea in theory to point that out, but administrators will be hesitant to reblock someone who had just been unblocked (I think there's a big distinction to be made between that situation and someone who's just had their block expire due to a timer). Usually in such a situation, to avoid wheel-warring, the unblocking administrator would be at least consulted and ideally a consensus behind a reblock would be developed first. Yet the statement is saying that isn't necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * While we're not perfect on this, we are now consistently consulting with the CU (or in rare circumstances the admin whose block is appropriate for review by ArbCom) who performed the block. So the comment you're referring to is about consulting with the community, like at AN. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone on the outside of those procedures, I read the announcement as meaning any admin can re-block the account that successfully appealed, without having to consult ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how I read it too. I think my initial query was just confusion on my part, since the Committee is effectively saying that an undiscussed reblock of an editor who was unblocked by them would not be wheel-warring (if there is renewed disruption, obviously). Sorry about that. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused, because it sounds to me like Barkeep49 took the question to be about the need (or lack thereof) to consult the community, whereas the question is about the need (or lack thereof) to consult with ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My reading is that blocking for the original offence (without consultation) would be wheel-warring but blocking for new disruption does not require prior consultation with ArbCom (although consultation is of course not prohibited). Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That feels like the correct interpretation to me. If Arbcom is clear-cut going forward about merits/ROPE appeals on their side, it'll be easier to avoid problems with "blocked for pattern of misconduct" mixed cases as well. --Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf's interpretation is correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that one thing that might help is to make a clearer distinction between unblocking someone (or otherwise revoking a sanction) based on an appeal and unlikelihood of re-offending, and vacating a block or sanction with the statement that it was never valid in the first place. It might even be useful to include those in the relevant policies.  I have absolutely seen multiple editors recently who had blocks or sanctions reversed on appeal after (at the time) tearfully admitting to wrongdoing and promising to do better, only to later stridently insist that the fact that their sanctions were reversed means they never did anything wrong. Possibly even - if someone admits to wrongdoing while appealing a block or sanction (and that was reasonably a part of their being unblocked or the sanction reversed), then if they later unambiguously reverse that position and start to argue that they did nothing wrong, that should be grounds for re-applying the sanction in question. Editors who are unblocked on the assurance that their conduct will improve have to actually remain committed to improving their conduct, for which at least not overtly denying their past misconduct is the bare minimum - going back on their acceptance that they ever did anything wrong is clearly incompatible with that. --Aquillion (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the intention here, and it's a good one. Though, as people are indicating, it doesn't really change anything; what would help is to give more detail when making an announcement of a successful appeal. Each case is different, and some information as to why an appeal was successful would be very useful for everyone. It may even help to device a format or template for such announcements giving information such as username, date of block, reason for block, who blocked, type of block, reason for unblocking, restrictions on user (if any), guidance to admins (if any) - such as that the user should (or should not) be re-blocked for creating new articles or editing in a certain topic area. SilkTork (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The flip side of this is a commitment on the committee's end to be clear in those cases where we are unblocking based on the initial block being invalid. This is normally not the case, but once in a while it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly,, current practice is that when the Committee unblocks on the merits, it doesn't impose restrictions. The unblocks the Committee carries out as extensions of ROPE tend to have one-account restrictions or topic bans, which are announced here. Can the community take the absence of additional sanctions to mean that the unblocks were on the merits? Sdrqaz (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the time, even when we unblock without restrictions, the original block was correct on the merits. In my year on the committee, I believe the number of users we unblocked "on the merits" could be counted on one hand. We will try to distinguish better. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What Kevin said. The whole point of this announcement is to stop people trying to read messages into unblocks that simply are not there, and I'd say " current practice is that when the Committee unblocks on the merits, it doesn't impose restrictions"would be an actual example of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. So if what I said that you quoted is inaccurate, does that mean that the Committee occasionally imposes restrictions even when the unblock was on the merits? If so, that would be peculiar. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you can be fairly confident that if the Committee imposes restrictions, we didn't find the user fault-free. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a good and useful statement. Admins are very wary of doing anything that could be seen as going against an ArbCom action, as this can lead to criticism and fairly rapid loss of the tools, so it's helpful to set out the ground rules from time to time. This is especially the case given a high proportion of ArbCom unblocks seem to result from off-Wiki email discussions where admins can't see the commitments the editor made when they asked to be unblocked - it really would be helpful to bring this on-Wiki in some way. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to update the Guide to arbitration
In several recent cases, the committee and clerks have received questions about how Arbitration cases work from parties. Our general response has been to refer them to the Guide to arbitration but we have found that while this guide offers a great overview, it isn't always written in a way to provide answers to "what do I do now?" to people in the midst of the process. As such the committee is inviting any interested editors to collaborate either on a new information page or on improvements to the current page. Interested editors are invited to collaborate at this sandbox - please do not edit the current page. If successful, this work would then be formally adopted by the committee. Please let me know if you have any questions. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole

 * Original announcement
 * Thank you, long overdue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the committee and all involved users for their patience. I had no idea what I had gotten myself into. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the "announcement" link in HazelBasil's block log is to an oversighted revision (I assume it's your initial post on ARBN), just in case you weren't aware. Not sure what can be done about that. ansh. 666 03:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The announcement at WP:AN states "This also precludes SquareInARoundHole from editing the Ashley Gjøvik article." - A WP:PBLOCK would prevent this and prevent future drama following the editing of the article in question. It is not clear whether the prohibition extends from ARBCOM extends to the article's talk page, but a PBLOCK from article talk is also an option. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: the block log - fixed, thank you.
 * Re: partial blocks - this is an interaction ban between HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole. Since the former user is Ashley Gjøvik, it is less of a topic-ban and more of a pre-clarification that the article (and its talk page) are also off-limits as it the article about the person with which there is an interaction ban. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought it was an article being referred to. That said, PBLOCKS can be used with user pages and user talk pages. It's just a question as to whether or not the ban is voluntarily adhered to or enforced then? Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, we could put a partial block on both users for each of the others' user/talk pages, but an interaction ban is meant for any namespace, which cannot be technically enforced, so the easier option is to report violations. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

HazelBasil hasn't been around since January 8, 2022. Anyways, his her indef-ban certainly enforces his her half of the interaction ban. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , as has been indicated above, HazelBasil is female. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Timwi

 * Original announcement
 * Thanks for taking a reasonable view on what will hopefully be a once-off lapse. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jonathunder

 * Original announcement

Such a pity that ArbCom believes that editing as an IP means that contributions to official processes are disallowed. In evaluating a case on using tools to win a content war, many Arbitrators appear so concerned (only concerned?) with the sysop's tools that the very idea of emphasising that involved actions to win content disputes is unacceptable is avoided, even when specifically asked to consider this perspective by a talk page request. I posted originally in the hope of triggering some reflection, and was dismissed as unworthy to even have my comments included in the proceeding. Maybe might be able to get some Arbitrators to pause for long enough to think about how they might be viewed from the perspective of members of the community – even including ants like IP editors – as it is clear to me that some of you see the disruption to the community caused by tool misuse in content disputes and the harm from a sysop being able to ignoring accountability requests for extended periods without consequence as trivial when weighed against the disruption cause to that same sysop by tool-removal following obviously unacceptable conduct, even if only until the sysop chooses to engage with ArbCom. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , disappointingly, declares those concerned about the tool misuse are "traffic" that cause drama while viewing that non-editing by the sysop creates a drama-free non-emergency. OR, you are far better than to adopt the absurd position that misusing tools doesn't cause disruption but pointing it out does.
 * , you may want those contributing uninvolved statements to shut up but those statements are made in part out of concern that ArbCom might not act appropriately. You may genuinely believe that ArbCom's is infallible, but plenty of editors don't subscribe to that view.  To me, your offensive dismissal of anything I might say, based on my posting openly as an IP and disillusioned former editor, echoes a previous Arbitrator who believed in Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians.  That none of your colleagues challenged this is disappointing and, ominously, a bad sign for the future of this ArbCom.
 * apparently favoured doing nothing so as not to prejudice any defense in a future case... but what signal does doing nothing about misuse of tools in the meantime send about ArbCom's priorities. You could have included that Jonathunder be resysopped at the start of a case to avoid prejudice (and so the decision was desysop or not rather than resysop or not) but leaving him with the tools while a case is suspended for his benefit is not reasonable and it shows the tools are viewed as far more important than the policy against their misuse in content disputes.
 * actually did my the courtesy of offering a substantive response, and for that I say thank you... but I am still disappointed that none of your colleagues could express themselves on indirect harm to the community. It leaves ArbCom appearing that such matters are unimportant or beneath their consideration – and certainly not as important as retention of the tools by a sysop unwilling or unable to address their actions.


 * I've been commenting on these kinds of processes from IP addresses for many years and haven't had serious issues. WP has too much bureaucracy as it is.  Best to not ratchet it down even further  I'm not commenting on other topics in the above post for now, since I haven't read through the filings carefully.  I do hope to read them and post a general comment or two about the underlying dispute later, if I get around to it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No one is excluding you from making contributions to official processes, you're excluding yourself. You're demanding justice and equal rights and a whole lot of other things, but you can't even bother to register an account here. Why should anyone bother to put any energy into your requests when you can't be bothered to make a minimal commitment to this place? You're treated as a second-class citizen because you are one. You have no permanent presence here. You're a jumble of numbers. Today you're 172.195.96.244, tomorrow you could be 172.195.95.173, and the next day you could be 2001:8004:812:ba66:55e2:c:0:2854. It's not easy to interact with a shape-shifter that has no permanent presence here. You can't form a relationship or build trust with someone that doesn't have a stable persona. Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of vandalism is committed by IP editors, and a large portion of IP editors that are highly knowledgeable about how WP works are block-evading sockpuppets. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of either of these things (because I don't know anything about your editing history here (because you don't have a stable presence here (because you edit as an IP))), but the likelihood is relatively high.
 * Registering an account takes seconds, and doesn't require you to provide any identifiable information about yourself. You don't even have to provide an email address. Editing as a logged-in user is far more anonymous than editing as an IP, because your IP reveals that you're located on the east coast of Australia, among other things. Logged-in editors don't get caught in the crossfire of rangeblocks, which it appears you've recently been affected by. Logged-in editors have more privileges to edit protected articles. The list goes on and on. Hell, if you're so concerned about the use of admin tools, as a logged-in editor you could nominate yourself for adminship or run for ArbCom. Editing as a registered user means that anyone can look through your editing history to determine what you're all about. Editing as an IP means that your editing history is strewn among piles of random, unconnected numbers, and it's too easy to assume that you have something to hide in your editing history (especially considering that you've admitted to having an account here, but you prefer to edit anonymously).
 * You obviously know all of this already, and I'm preaching to the choir. WP is still the place that anyone can edit, and therefore you're welcome to continue contributing as an IP, to the extent that you can. But there is no policy on WP that guarantees IP editors the same rights and access levels as registered editors. So, in that sense, you should expect to continue to be excluded from certain parts of WP, and treated as a second class citizen in some respects. If you want to be treated seriously here, make the minimum commitment required to be more than a jumble of numbers. <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 17:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Until there is community consensus to the contrary, IP editors are entitled to the same respect as registered editors. The opinion that anyone is "second class" is just a personal opinion, not policy. There are of course practical issues to which IP editors are vulnerable, that can be avoided by registering. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The above is my personal opinion, and not intended to be a representation of WP policy. I also didn't intend to imply that IP editors deserve less respect, but they can expect to receive energy and commitment from WP editors in proportion to the energy and commitment they've made to WP. When I say that they are "second class citizens", I mean that there are restrictions on the things they can do on WP, such as offering statements in arbitration cases. This user is attempting to get around these restrictions by posting statements on various talk pages, which is inappropriate in my opinion. Either accept the restrictions that come along with editing as an IP, or stop editing as an IP. <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:IP addresses are not people. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)