This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Original announcement

Thanks for reviewing and updating this procedure. Although it took quite some time, the result is much better written than the previous procedure and should help resolve a number of practical issues. I still have doubts about some aspects of the new rules, such as about having alerts expire after a year, which might invite gaming this aspect of the process, but I suppose time will tell.  Sandstein  09:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrators might want to comment about whether the idea of automating alerts, as submitted for consideration at WP:BOTREQ#Alerting users about discretionary sanctions applying to topics which they edit, is a good one.  Sandstein  09:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope that arbitrators take into account the likely effect of such a bot on the project's typo-fixers and other gnomes. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length and I fully share your concern about gnomes. Frankly, I think this proposal is a step too far.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is ambivalence on whether DS notices are purely routine or whether they convey a concern about misbehavior. In principle a notification bot might appear to be an overstep, but if the notification bot followed a precise algorithm then the people notified would surely not feel rebuked. Maybe the bot could issue a special message that that was less conspicuous than the one issued by humans. It would still ping the edit filter log the way that DS/alert now does. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions:

• 1) In the section called "Authorisation" it states, "Unless the committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding the authorisation all sanctions remain in force." This appears to me to say that if discretionary sanctions are lifted by ARBCOM, the sanctions still remain in effect upon affected editors. I might be reading this incorrectly but if discretionary sanctions no longer exist on a topic, it doesn't make sense that some, but not all, editors still be affected by them.
• 2) I'm most familiar with the pseudoscience DS but in that instance, it is typically logged when a warning, notice or "alert" is placed on an editor's talk page. But in this policy, logging in actions is only mentioned in relationship to uninvolved administrators or the committee imposing blocks. However, since this new policy states that no more than one alert should be posted on an editor's talk page (regarding a single DS) during a year's time, there must be the insistence that these postings be logged or else this restriction can not be observed.

While this new policy might seem bureaucratic to some, DS have, at times, been enforced in a haphazard manner and I think this new policy adds clarity and includes accountability which I applaud. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

1) The idea is that if we authorized discretionary sanctions over "the color of the sky", and then user X gets indefinitely topic banned from "the color of the sky", and then two years later we decided that DS is no longer needed for this topic, the topic ban of user X does not automagically disappear.

2) The new policy requires the use of a particular template (((ds/alert))). Uses of this template are monitored by an edit filter. Edits using this template are tagged in the page history, and each use is also stored in a searchable log (see ((ds/log))). This is better than the sometimes haphazard logging on case pages. T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind response, T. Canens. By the way, I made a suggestion to The Signpost that they cover this change in policy in order that it receives adequate publicity. Even if some of the changes are small, I think the reminders will be beneficial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I note that the comment I left here earlier about the deprecated template has been blanked, and without notifying me. The reason I posted the information here is that I believe the readers of this thread may also be interested in the fate of the associated templates, an observation that is born out by the fact that the same arb who blanked the comment also voted in the Requested Move for the template. If this is not a proper venue for mention of template changes resulting from this motion, perhaps an uninvolved editor might steer me to a more appropriate venue. —Neotarf (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If the community want a template, that's fine but it's not the committee's role to author their templates. Obviously, there's no problem with recycling parts of the template, but wording/further usages have nothing to do with the committee.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This template is already being used, with modifications, for Community Sanctions, because there isn't a specific template for that purpose. There will also be editors who look for the old ArbCom template and will need to be directed to the new one, since not everyone follows all the corresponding talk page minutiae. While this isn't solely an ArbCom issue, it needs to be addressed by individuals with both ArbCom and template expertise. —Neotarf (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't an ArbCom issue at all,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently my explanation was too tactful, and no one can understand it. Let me explain it like this. Template:Ds/sanction was being used by two groups, ArbCom sanctions and Community sanctions. ArbCom decided to fork the template, and created a new one. Then ArbCom broke the template, so the other group couldn't use it any more. I would suggest that someone with ArbCom expertise be monitoring the fix, so that it doesn't accidentally get broken for ArbCom purposes. —Neotarf (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You have already explained all this over there. AGK [•] 09:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a question. In my reading of the new DS policy, it looks like a notice, and only a notice, is supposed to be posted on a user's talk page (without further, ad-hoc comments) when they veer into editing an area covered by discretionary sanctions. This was not the rule in the past. So, is a warning like User talk:LCcritic#Warning in keeping with the new DS policy? I don't mean to point fingers, these accompanying comments were quite common in the PS area, I just want to know if they are discouraged under the new DS policy. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Can an arbitrator or two clarify whether DS alerts are supposed to be simply posted or can they be accompanied by personalized warnings? It's the difference from being informational and being a little threatening. I thought the new policy was going in a more neutral direction. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In order for the edit filter to reliably log a DS notification, the alert should have a signature added and not much else. Make a second edit to add any wanted notes (that can be done immediately after adding the alert). See here, in particular my "To ensure that the alert is correctly logged" comment near the bottom, and the reply. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess I misread the new DS because I thought alerts were supposed to be purely informational and not have a personalized "or else you'll be blocked" note attached. That changes a comment that is meant to inform to a comment which is threatening and, when posted to a talk page by a non-admin editor, it's a hollow threat that is purely meant to intimidate others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are two things you can't have at the same time:

1. All notices should be nice (purely informational)
2. Before any sanction is enacted, the person should be given an explanation of how their conduct is said to violate the standards in the topic area.

Under the old DS system, admins were expected to take care of function #2. They would tell the user what the problem was, so that nobody would stumble into a block or a topic ban that they weren't expecting. If no DS notice is allowed to convey any negative comment, then you can't have #2. The admin in User talk:LCcritic#Warning used a bit of rhetoric but the warning given was (in my opinion) correct and it aptly described the problem. I am unsure whether correct admin advice to problem users ought to be described as threatening. ANI has now taken care of the issue per a community ban and it turned out that discretionary sanctions were not used. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That particular user's main problem was mining warnings and other critical commentary for statements that he could read as supportive of continuing to behave exactly as before. The DS warning was posted unaltered, as required, my statement underneath was an explicit statement of the problem, why the warning was issued, and what he should do about it. I think it is only fair to be completely open about these things: leaving a template message that says there isn't necessarily a problem, when there very definitely is, would be wrong. Any guidance on how best to do this will be appreciated, but I don't think we do anyone a service by placing an alert that says "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date" when there is abundant evidence that the user's contributions to date are a serious and ongoing problem. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I chose this warning as an example because it contained the type of warning I was seeing, I don't know the specifics of the editor and this case. But I should have chosen a similar incident where these "or else you'll be blocked" warnings were given by a non-admin. I understand you were acting in your capacity as an administrator.

EdJohnston, in the area I'm more familiar with, pseudoscience, these DS alerts are typically posted on the talk page of everyone who is an active participant in a related discussion as a notice, there isn't necessarily any problematic behavior. Things are more even-handed now but in the past, editors on one side of a dispute who post warnings on the talk page of those they opposed and said things like "if you continue editing like this, you will be blocked". It seemed like a way to get another editor to withdraw from a conversation. That's the problem I brought up during the review of DS a few months ago, and I thought the new DS policy was an attempt to make these alerts more neutral and informative. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You make a good case for the DS Alert to be optionally applied to an article talk page, rather than to individual users. The intent is to ensure that they are aware, after all, not to create an inviolable process which must be followed before disruption can be stopped. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are notices that are placed on talk pages of articles covered under discretionary sanctions. The notices aren't always posted but they often are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I found this comment by AGK on User talk:AGK#Alert problem where he expresses how I thought the new DS alerts were to be used:

• "The length limit was introduced during testing, when the template parameters were less stable. It meant that less talk page comments were incorrectly tagged during development, because only comments that were almost exactly the same size as an alert could be tagged. I kept it in after the template was fully tested because I didn't think supplementary messages were in keeping with the spirit of alerts: they are supposed to be single notices left in passing; using them in dialogue may mean using them in a manner contrary to their purpose. I do, of course, concede that most editors are sensible and courteous enough to be capable of leaving notes alongside an alert without causing offence (and I'm sure your messages of background support this point)... AGK [•] 12:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)"

Also, at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts it states, "An alert: is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault..."

So, it was seeing comments like this one (and there were others during the DS discussion) about keeping alerts to be single notices, without "supplementary messages". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

All I will say at this point is that the DS procedures are clearly spelled out and must now be followed, basically without exception or deviation. We held a formal, lengthy review of DS so that, once the new system was finalised, nobody would have to propose alternative interpretations to the procedure and everybody could get on with writing an encyclopedia :-). AGK [•] 22:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the long process this review has gone through. I am just asking for confirmation that by saying "An alert: is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault..", that this means that editors and admins should not post supplementary messages threatening blocks if some behavior continues. Because that kind of comment is exactly expressing a finding of fault. All of my comments here on this topic have just been seeking this confirmation which arbitrators have either refused to answer or danced around instead of explicitly saying, "Yes, no supplementary messages with finding of fault should accompany an alert".

Without this clarification, you allow for ambiguity which I am sure is not an intended result of this lengthy review of DS. This will just defer to WP:AN/I to make these judgment calls on a case-by-case basis. If this occurs, given what I've seen at AN/I, the response of admins will vary depending upon a) who the alert was given to and b) which admin made the "supplementary messages" saying "Don't do that again or else". I think this variable treatment is the opposite of the definitive result sought by the review.

I get the feeling that arbitrators are comfortable with this ambiguity because they know that some admins can handle accompanying messages fairly. But policy shouldn't be written for those admins who are most diplomatic and even-tempered, it should be written for admins who make quick decisions under pressure. I see a lot of "or else" messages occurring in the near future because few admins will know this finding of fault is no longer permitted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the alert should be placed using the standard template only and nothing else should be done with that edit. That then is the alert which implies nothing good, bad or indifferent about a user's conduct. If the user's conduct is such that it continuing unchanged is undesirable, then a warning may be left, however that warning is separate to and independent of the alert and must be left in a separate edit to the alert. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I interpret that as ((Alert)) must be put on the user's talk page in it's entirety (you can't change what's in the message box), and other messages can be left along with it. Take, for example, blocking someone for a 3RR vio on Scientology and at the same time as the block notice leaving them an alert. It is very much within WP:NOTBURO territory to make one edit to leave the block notice then another 30 seconds later to leave ((Alert)). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Unless asked otherwise, I intend to act as if my AUSC term expires on the end date of my term, 1 July. I will remove my CU access and start processing OS requests as a full member of the Oversight team. Please don't assume that I am going to stay on the AUSC until you feel like getting around to starting the process of appointing new community members. I have asked several arbs several times about the end of my term and I have never gotten a clear answer. I am a person who is volunteering their time, not some cog in machine of wikipedia. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully quick clarification question about interaction bans imposed under discretionary sanctions. If I impose a standard mutual IBAN under discretionary sanctions (say the sanctions for Eastern Europe as an example) are those two users subject to the ban only when editing or commenting on pages/discussions related to the area of conflcit or on all areas on Wikipedia? Reason I ask is that if an IBAN is needed it's likely just preventing them from editing in the topic area won't be effective however WP:AC/DS states that we can't enforce sanctions "beyond their reasonable scope". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In the case you mention, in my opinion the two editors would be subject to the IBAN everywhere on Wikipedia. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

I wish this had been the subject of community discussion. It might be the right outcome, but I think it would have been better if there was a broader consensus for this change. I think there was an advantage to those reviewing the user of checkuser/oversight to be (and be seen to be) independent of the routine application of those tools. Some cases may call into question practices that have become routine and someone involved in a day to day basis in acting as checkuser/oversighter is more likely to be defensive of those practices. Maybe a full discussion and cost/benefit analysis would have resulted in this decision being adopted anyway - I see that Guerillero was minded to step down if not allowed to make routine uses of the tools for instance - but I still think a fuller discussion would have been beneficial. WJBscribe (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've long been hesitant about allowing AUSC members to participate in the day-to-day (including during my term on the committee), but somewhat was persuaded by Nyb's analysis in the linked motion (while still sharing WJB's concern). –xeno^talk 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

These are really interim measures as we are experiencing regular backlogs while at the same time AUSC is only getting about one case per month, and basically nothing has come of any of the cases presented so far this year. There has been some discussion of overhauling or even doing away with AUSC, but we don't have anything ready to present to the community just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

I don't know if the Arbs regularly check the Arbitration Enforcement section, but I did want to draw everyone's attention to the three open requests, one filed again Pigsonthewing by Nikkimaria, another, also filed by Nikkimaria against Gerda Arendt, and the last filed by RexxS against Nikkimaria, all concerning infobox-related behavior.

Without commenting on the majority of the issues raised, I'd like to point out to the committee the clear fact that the committee's use of an "admonishment" as a sanction -- in this instance against Nikkimaria in the Infobox case -- seems to be taken by the admins commenting at AE as having no effective value, and not as an enforceable sanction at AE. For this reason, I'd like to suggest that, in the future, any admonishment should be made enforceable by a specific mention of potential sanctions should the behavior which brought about the admonishment be repeated.

It seems to me that if an editor involved in a case did nothing wrong, then there would be nothing in the results of which impacted negatively on the editor. Conversely, if an editor's behavior rises to level which results in a slap on the wrist, there ought to be specific mention of what will happen if the admonishment is ignored. Obviously the committee cannot go back and change the results of the Infobox case, so I offer this as an opinion about the results of future cases. BMK (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The AE thread was closed as the case contained no remedies enforceable at AE. A request has now been made at WP:AN#Nikkimaria - topic ban proposal to topic ban Nikkimaria. Arbitrators may wish to keep abreast of the thread to save reading later - if this doesn't succeed in ending the problems around infoboxes it will not be long before the topic is back with the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Obviously I can't speak for them, but in the past the Committee has said, when asked this previously, admonishments are a type of warning and so can't be enforced directly. If a user, who's been admonished by the Committee, continues to do the things they were admonished for then the matter can be brought back to the Committee for review and action (etc). In this case the community is dealing with it first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Callanec: Thanks for that explanation. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it is, my preference would be for the Committee not to deal in essentially toothless warnings, but to specify to the admonished editor something concrete which will occur if they don't reform their behavior. After all, ArbCom is our highest level of governance on Wikipedia, and "warnings", per se, can be issued by the lowliest rank-and-file editor. ArbCom's admonishments should carry more weight than that, and have a more definite and specific meaning. BMK (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In the one case I was involved in drafting I deliberately avoided "admonishment", opting instead for a warning which mentioned that continuing the problematic behavior could lead to a ban.

The thing I am beginning to realize is that an arbcom decision is only as good as the evidence submitted. We are not an investigative body, we rely on the parties to the case and community members familiar with the issues brought to us to provide evidence for us to examine. Sometimes this includes evidence of wrongdoing by a particular user which, while problematic, simply isn't enough to justify a specific sanction on that user. That's where these admonishments come in. I've never liked putting it that way, it feels like saying "boys will be boys" and sweeping it under the rug. A clear warning to desist with the problematic behavior and an indication of what will happen if they do not seems to me to be a more effective deterrent. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

I'm curious what percent of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee's time is spent on arbitrating disputes between users. My impression is that it's less than twenty percent. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In a brief (very moving, though sparsely attended) ceremony earlier this morning, I deleted all ArbCom-related emails from my computer, so I can't go back and count. But my initial instinct is that 20% is probably in the ballpark, at least as a long term average. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Floquenbeam: :-) In many contexts, a 20% success rate is a dismal failure (rated F- because the scale bottoms out at such a level). I wonder at what point it becomes clear that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is failing and should be disbanded. We have OTRS and the wiki. That covers public and private discussions pretty well, I think. Better than arbcom-en-c or whatever. Out of hundreds of Wikimedia wikis and tens of thousands of MediaWiki wikis, nearly all of them do not have an arbitration committee and they get by just fine. Eh. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sad because you were my voice of reason there, but I completely understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me add - in a little ceremony - how much I liked "no foul, play on". Play on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your service, Floquenbeam. Risker (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks and appreciation from me too. I found the explanation quite moving, and I wish you all the best with respect to your peace of mind. And it reminds me, once again, that the Committee needs to find ways to redefine and delegate its workload. As MZMcBride suggested, too much Committee time and gastric acid is devoted to things other than arbitration. Sadly, the very fact that the Committee is overworked means that the things that could correct these problems keep getting pushed to the back burner. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We're all going to miss Floq on the committee, but at the same time we all understand why he needs to do this.

In my opinion our biggest timesink is WP:BASC. It takes up a huge amount of committee time, and I would estimate that only about 15% of appeals are successful. (although technically there are only 4 arbs on the subcommittee, all arbs get the emails and it is rare for only the four of us to discuss appeals) I have already been drafting ideas for how we might hand most if not all responsibility for non-arbcom ban appeals to a community-run subcommittee with maybe one arb as a liaison to the full committee. I hope to have something fleshed out and ready to present for discussion soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm delighted to hear that you are giving attention to that. In case it has been lost in the shuffle, please let me make you aware of some discussions between Roger Davies and me about the same thing. I prepared a draft for him at User:Tryptofish/Draft for ArbCom. My discussions with him are at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 23#Mail handling and User talk:Roger Davies/Archive 2014#At your service.... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask the heretical question: is there any value to having a BASC at all? You talk about the 15% that are "successful", but I suspect you mean "we unblock 15% of those that appeal". Any idea what the percentage is of appeals that are unblocked and don't eventually get reblocked? I suspect that is a number that is well under 1%.—Kww(talk) 03:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's much higher than that. For example, in 2014, we've unblocked 7 editors according to the archive. One has been subsequently reblocked. That's an 85% success rate on the ones we do let back. Worm^TT(talk) 08:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your other point, i do believe it is important to have BASC as a final avenue of appeal. Sometimes blocks are wrongly issued, and sometimes blocked users freak out a little bit and get their talk page revoked. BASC is a sort of quiet place to have a discussion about their block or ban in private. It can happen that the subcommittee concludes a sanction was not appropriately applied, and it is good to have a low-profile way for long-term banned or blocked users to figure out how to find their way back to constructive editing.

Where we run into problems is with certain people who appeal again and again and eventually we just stop reading their mail. If the list at the arbwiki is correct, that is currently only six people, but the six of them have sucked away hours and hours of our time before being put on auto-reject. My draft proposal will codify in which situations we do this, it will probably cause the list to move up to about a dozen individuals, which is still a pretty small number when you consider that the total number of users eligible to appeal to BASC has got to number in the thousands. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear this, wishing you the best. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm sorry to see you go, Floq. Best wishes! → Call me Hahc21 20:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• saw this - primary question imho is why was a candidate, and others that were poor choices being voted in ? why would a candidate offer his services and then get accepted for two years then drop out quickly and then resign after a quarter of their term.... this shows an issue with the polling process and the election structure Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I thought he was very helpful in my Arbitration, responding to questions and being helpful in other matters. But it definitely is a big job. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• No gold watch, but nevertheless deserves thanks for doing a tough job. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Original Announcement

The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comment is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Mike V • Talk 06:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Could an arbitrator confirm or deny whether Blue Salix sent an email as stated at User_talk:BlueSalix#August_2014? NE Ent 23:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He did email us at 23:43 on 22 August, as per his statement. At the moment, I see nothing for Arbcom to act upon. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Two housekeeping comments:

1. As of right now, the message from Seddon doesn't have a link to this page. Anyone mind if it gets added? Everything with arbitration seems to be so very profoundly bureaucratic and anti-IAR that I dare not touch it.
2. It's one thing when you don't know the sex of the person in question, but when the person is named "Erik" and looks like this, please please please don't use "their" and "them".

No comments on the substance of the motion, the case, or anything else like that. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added the link on AN feel free to do that sort of thing yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The use of a gender neutral language saves any risk of confusion. As far as I am concerned an individuals gender is of no relevance in the work that I do as a clerk and it makes no difference to the outcome of the motion. Seddon ^talk 11:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not the job of the clerk to edit the motion, but rather to post the exact words of the motion the committee passed. [1] . I've copy / pasted the exact words of the motion. If Seddon ever pulls a stunt like that again, the committee should fire him forwith. NE Ent 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That, I think, would be an overreaction. AGK [•] 18:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As I say, "Everything with arbitration seems to be so very profoundly bureaucratic and anti-IAR". In no other context would anyone even suggest punishing someone for fixing an oversight without getting permission first. This is basically as bad as Wiktionary. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect AGK was referring to firing Seddon. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Picking up solely on the point of language, as Erik's personal preferences are unlikely to be an issue; our default when referring to editors should be to stay gender neutral unless they have expressed their own preference, such as recent comments about themselves or statements on their user page. Many Wikipedians happen to know my gender, but when relevant I ask to be referred to as gender neutral on this project, and tend not to ask for corrections if referred to as either sex (understanding that my account is confusing for those that presume it is a variant of a real name rather than a word - it gets quickly boring to make an issue out of it every time).

While the use of "their" and "them" reads as awkward and poor English usage to purists, I am pleased when I see Arbcom members taking a lead on this netiquette. --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone going to fix the version at AN which says "request request" Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a correction. NE Ent 23:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Question: could someone please update the lists here and here? (+update the dates: June vs August) Trijnstel_talk 18:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Done that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• There has been a tradition for a while that if appointed to the AUSC an arbitration clerk would resign. I decided to stay on until the Media Viewer RfC case was finished as I was the case clerk but in the past week or so I've been discussing with Roger Davies why clerks would need to resign. What are people's opinions on whether clerks should resign if appointed to AUSC? To be clear, tf there is feeling among the community that it is too much of a conflict then I will resign. Pinging Rschen7754 as he commented on my Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  Personally, I do not believe that there is a conflict between AUSC and Arbcom Clerk. AUSC is not a commonly used committee, the workload is small, but primarily looking over the use of CU and OS tools. Arbcom Clerks look after the bureaucracy of Arbcom. The overlap is vanishingly small so I am personally of the opinion that clerks should not resign to serve on the AUSC. Worm^TT(talk) 09:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  I agree with WormTT. In the event of a conflict, one who is a clerk and AUSC member could recuse from any conflicted proceeding, but the likelihood of that occurring is vanishingly small. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  Echoing WomTT and Seraphimblade. I do not see there being any cause for a resignation from clerking to take up an AUSC post. If our predictions turn out incorrect and you find yourself frequently recusing or otherwise needing to manoeuvre carefully around potential conflicts of interests then you can resign at that time, but I'd bet a sizeable sum this wont happen. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'm less sanguine than the others. It's about appearance. If the Arbs are your bosses in one forum (in which you have to exercise dependent judgement), but your equals in another (in which you have to exercise independent judgement), than the appearance of conflicting interest is present. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  Except the Arbs aren't the clerks bosses in any meaningful sense. I've never know a clerk undertake an action they didn't personally consider appropriate; and they often act entirely of their own volition, operating autonomously. This has many parallels with the ArbCom-CU/OS relationship and there has never been an issue with ArbCom appointing community members from within the CU/OS ranks.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  Well ignore the boss thing, if you don't like that metaphor, that was not the point -- they work for your committee - and there is another committee where they don't work for your committee but have to deal with you. As for clerks own volition, we see below how that easily goes awry. It's not about what they do, it's about what may appear to influence. I have no problem believing that in their hearts they are all pure as the driven snow, but I am not making a point on their person. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  No, they don't work for the committee. They handle the nitty-grity of the arbitration process. Not the same thing at all,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine, as it appears that they do clerk for the committee, than then they do that work, and the problem remains, and as the roles have been separate before, there is no reason to commingle them. We have just seen a high-profile disentangling of commingling. (And, in answer to the comments below it's not about respect for their work or not, nor is it to do with Callanec's personal integrity). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's "comingling" any roles. They are separate and will stay that way.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure they are - or resign one when you are appointed to the other. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd agree with Roger - I don't hide the fact that I hate (and I mean hate) the bureaucracy of Arbcom, who writes what where doesn't matter a jolt to me. But it does matter so that we have consistency and someone needs to look after it - that's what the clerks do. I tried to be one but went nuts within weeks - so I stopped - I've got utmost respect for the job they do, but the Arbitration Committee are not their masters by a long shot. Worm^TT(talk) 12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I see how some people could oppose the image this gives out and the community may wish to make a policy decision about it formally. However, nobody is (as far as I see) calling Callanecc's integrity into question, and I am happy to see them remain a clerk, recusing when necessary of course. The overlap of the roles appears small. BethNaught (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that there is an issue. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• My concerns were more related to the number of roles and ability to do okay in all of them. --Rschen7754 01:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

This makes sense. An ArbCom-desysoped user should always be given a chance to run an other RFA, although it does make sense to not allow it immediately. This user waited 8 years for this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Let him die a poor man, never able to regain the tools he forfeited. RFAs are a tremendous waste of community time and resources, so if he has no chance to win he has no right to play! Kholmov wins (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That comment is not helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying I would support him, but I definitely think we should let him try (and he would need to explain why we can trust him better now...) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• If I said that I'd been mulling over the prospect of proposing this exact amendment to the Guanaco/Mark Sweep case for two years now, would anyone here believe me? Glad to see that the ruling there is now overturned — even the remotest possibility of this setting a bad precedent at a later date needs to be stamped out with extreme prejudice. Kurtis ^(talk) 23:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have believed you, though I also would have told you not to worry too much about the "precedent", as it's long been clear that the procedure used for deadminning this editor in 2006 is no longer used. The only circumstance under which ArbCom would be likely to prohibit a desysopped administrator from trying a new RfA today is if some really drastic non-public information were involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• This is an evolving community that today has little in common with the community of eight years ago. It is reasonable to make this change and to allow, should they choose to run again, the current community to exercise its judgement. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That was exactly my thinking and I believe that of the whole Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

50.0.205.237 (talk)
04:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Tarc may not edit any administrative noticeboards, nor User talk:Jimbo Wales, aside from the normal exceptions

Is this referring to WP:BANEX, which permits reverting vandalism and appealing bans, or are the "normal exceptions" a group of other pages? This would have been clearer with a link to BANEX or more details on which pages constitute the group of exceptions. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The assumption is WP:BANEX, which is linked sometimes and sometimes not. But that is what the implication is unless specified otherwise. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc does this include reporting disputes and people he is directly involved in? If not, it seems like the classic one way IBAN situation where someone could harass him and he could do nothing to report it. KonveyorBelt 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion as an admin is that that (nor the SPA example below) would not be allowable exception to the ban under WP:BANEX. On the whole I agree with Carrite's wording below however I suspect that it would be an allowable exception for Tarc to report harassment (etc) against himself as long as his edits contain only what is required and he doesn't engage in unnecessary (or any depending on what it is) discussion on the administrative board. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is very ambiguous wording and it is probably going to be tested. One would think that the "normal exceptions" for Tarc would be (1) responding to a complaint made about Tarc; or (2) appealing a block or ban made against Tarc. But that's not precisely how it reads. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think another issue about BANEX, in general, is that it is very subjective how one defines obvious vandalism reversion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
• Carrite, your obsession with talking about me, both on and off-wiki, is bordering on the creepy/stalkerish. Find something better to do. As for the wording, if there's any "testing" it will not be deliberate boundary-probing but rather because of the lack of clarity. For example, IMO it is fine to post here now because this is an issue that concerns me directly. It's also not an "administrative noticeboard", but rather an Arb noticeboard. So what's actually off-limits are AN, ANI, 3RR, and so on. DRV, XfDs, BLPN, etc...are fine as those are boards for soliciting community input, not admins. I wonder though if I can file an ANI report on a situation in which I am involved in? For example, a few days before this ruling came down, I had to deal with an SPA and sock-runner, and went to ANI to resolve it as warranted. Is that sort of thing now verboten? Tarc (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I reccomend that you take it to WP:ARCA. KonveyorBelt 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

At Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#User:Cookiecutteramaru unblocked Worm That Turned announced on behalf of the BASC that Cookiecutteramaru has been unblocked subject to the following condition: "*Cookiecutteramaru is topic banned from palaeontology articles."

Inclusion of the word "articles" is atypical and seems intended to be more narrowly focused than most topic bans. Specifically I read that as meaning that Cookiecutteramaru:

1. May not edit articles entirely or predominantly related to palaeontology
2. May not edit the talk pages of articles entirely or predominantly related to palaeontology
3. May not engage in discussion about articles entirely or predominantly related to palaeontology (e.g. at a WikiProject talk page)
4. May not, on articles not entirely or predominantly related to palaeontology, add or edit sections relating to palaeontology
5. May not discuss sections relating to palaeontology on articles not entirely or predominantly related to palaeontology on that article's talk page or elsewhere
6. May otherwise edit and discuss articles not entirely or predominantly related to palaeontology
7. May edit and discuss categories and templates related to palaeontology, but may not add or remove these from articles
8. May engage in discussions related to palaeontology that are not directly about articles, e.g.
   • answering reference desk questions
   • non-article related discussion on a WikiProject page or talk page
   • notice board threads about palaeontology that are not directly related to articles (e.g editorial conduct)

Is this interpretation correct? If not, please could the Committee or sub-committee clarify their intent? Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Has anybody spotted this yet? Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've pinged the mailing list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. This is probably my fault as I wrote the condition, but your interpretation seems to match my expectations. Worm^TT(talk) 14:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Hi. I'm not sure this is the right page to discuss the case (if no could somebody please move my post to the right place). I have this question please: the only info Neotarf provided was taken either from English Wikipedia or from gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawiki.bugs. According to Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation: "It's complicated. While gmane.org does not belong to us, it is a mirror of a mailing list and/or bug reports that are hosted on systems that do belong to us." So, if the site belongs to WMF why Neotarf is blocked/banned for outing? Thanks. 222.187.222.118 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Since I placed this block, you are welcome to discuss it with me, but first, please login to your Wikipedia account. Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot even begin to fathom the reasons behind the egregious sanction disparity exhibited in this case. The Findings of Fact regarding Carolmooredc seem ridiculously overblown compared to the included links, and even if we accept the findings of fact at face value, the justification for an indefinite ban appears to be completely absent. Meanwhile, the Findings of Fact regarding Eric Corbett clearly demonstrate a repeated pattern of non-civil behavior, including a finding that the user has completely disclaimed one of the site's five pillars, but no indefinite ban is forthcoming. This disparity is so baffling that I simply cannot comprehend how it came about. I hate to accuse the ArbCom of gender-based bias, but given the context of the case and the inexplicability of the sanctions, they've made such accusations very difficult to avoid. Powers ^T 13:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you hate to accuse, then don't. Wikipedia isn't about quotas, counting how many supposed men and how many supposed women get sanctioned in a case. For pseudonymous editors we don't really know who's who anyways. This is a wrong, battleground mentality to think that an editor's sexual identity should affect how cases are decided. This was a long case with a lot of evidence and these arbitrators did their best to decide it. If you think you could be a better arbitrator than the ones we have, you can run in the election next year or you can at least vote for the arbitrator candidates you would prefer between now and Dec 7. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the quantity of editors of either gender being sanctioned; you may be ascribing to me comments you've read elsewhere. What I'm saying is simply that it appears that the behavior leading to an indefinite ban was significantly less damaging to the project than the behavior that led to mere admonishment and the threat of possible future sanctions. I also do point out that given the context of the case, one would expect the Committee to take extra care to avoid the appearance of gender bias, but the results belie that assumption.

Furthermore, do I correctly take your comments to indicate that the only acceptable method of providing feedback to the ArbCom is via annual elections?

-- Powers ^T 19:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

+1 on sanction disparity, based on many off-wiki comments.

This is a smart time for Arbcom to consider a grant request for independent advice and a public report on its possible systemic bias, especially considering the new batch of candidates show the committee is going to continue being mostly composed of heterosexual white men. As the gender gap has been top of the Foundation's agenda for the last few years, it is a safe bet that a grant request would be successful and a positive step.

As with recent new Arbcom candidate statements, defending the status quo by repeating that as private individuals you do not feel biased and that many of your friends are women, gays or other minorities, does not stop there being a concern; especially when Arbcom candidates wish to avoid being open about their gender, sexuality or their personal views about related issues, preferring to state that it is irrelevant to the committee. "Don't ask, don't tell" has not worked out very well everywhere it has been tried. Were you to reflect on the legal history of the last 40 years, a key lesson is that no matter how fair your company/committee/jury might feel themselves to be to the viewpoint of minority groups, if they fail to ensure fair representation of these groups, then systemic bias and a public perception of systemic bias has always been impossible to avoid.

This case has been a PR failure regardless of whether it was literally correct against policies. It might be wise for some committee members to offer interviews to the Signpost or similar on their views for the future of Arbcom, how it might be improved, and its ability to be seen to fairly address gender gap. In the wider context, the priority should be on how Wikipedia can become more welcoming (and in the short term seem less hostile) to new editors with an obvious or declared interest in improving minority group topics.

P.S. A general point, just because someone is openly a woman or LGBT, does not mean they have a conflict of interest every time they touch related encyclopaedia articles. --Fæ (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction Having double checked candidate replies to questions today, there are no open women candidates, though it is correct that one openly LGBT candidate is standing. My previous assumption was based on a comment made away from the candidate Q&A area and so probably should be considered irrelevant to any assessment of this type of openness. --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

For completeness, and the hope that a future Arbcom may review the archive of this thread and consider the wider public perception of possible systemic bias, Slate has a detailed article about this case and how it may be interpreted. It is rare that an Arbcom case gets noticed by the external press. --Fæ (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be the writer Ryulong had a dispute with over GamerGamergate --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 20:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like there may be a mistake in the announcement regarding Specifico. One of the FoFs for him is cited instead of the remedy. Iselilja (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Iselilja: Whoops, that was my bad. I've fixed it here, and I'll notify Specifico momentarily. Thanks for pointing it out. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: and @Iselilja: It's even more my bad, because I checked it through after you'd drafted it, missed the glitch, and signed it off. Apologies,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just to note: This decision is discussed in Slate (magazine).[2] Since he is mentioned by name, pinging Eric Corbett. Risker (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Risker for posting that. It certainly makes for a, um, provocative read. And I don't entirely agree with the author. But it's interesting to see one example of how someone outside views the situation. Now I'm about to say something that I know will get me flamed. But I remember that, a while back, Jimmy Wales gave a speech in which he talked about showing some longtime editors the door, and he came into a lot of criticism for it. (I want to make clear at this point that I'm not implying anything about any specific editors, but instead, speaking in general.) Maybe Jimmy was making a better point than some editors have given him credit for. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The author of that article seems unaware of the proposed decision page, in which several arbitrators explained the reasons for their various votes in some detail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yea, Tech Review already said that. At least he had the decency to quote them. Otherwise, the number of factual errors is pretty high ... for example, describing those slackers on the committee as "overbooked" wait, I have a case open Wales as head of WMF. NE Ent 00:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Technically, Jimbo is not "head of WMF", however considering that neither he nor the WMF do much to change the current set up where any time there is a news programme or headline to be made they are positively encouraged to get quotes from Jimbo, in practice he may as well be the official spokesman. In "real life", such as academic editathons, I find that few people have heard of Jimmy Wales, even if they know quite a bit about Wikipedia. There is no chance that non-Wikipedians know who the current CEO is, let alone others in the empire, or be interested in buying a newspaper (or the e-equivalent) to read their opinions in an editorial. --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

After a brief review of that page, NYB, I'm still confused. The Arbs seem to be bending over backward to give Eric "one more chance" while jumping immediately to a siteban of Carol because she's a tendentious editor. I don't see any justification presented for why one is considered irredeemably tendentious while the other deserves "one more chance", but maybe I'm not looking in the right place. Powers ^T 12:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Risker. I became aware of the article when browsing through the archives of the gendergap mailing list. Some of what is said there (on the gendergap mailing list) concerns me enough that I'm going to point out my concerns here. I'd like to join that mailing list (some very interesting things are being discussed there), but I'm a bit wary of doing so until things have calmed down a bit, or the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there. Among other things, I noticed a posting about legal repercussions, someone suggesting doxxing/opposition research, and plans to block vote at ArbCom elections with new editors recruited at editathons. Why would anyone go anywhere near that mailing list with that sort of thing going on? Going back to the Slate article, I think it is important to put on the record that the author of the article didn't approach us (ArbCom) for comments or a response. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand entirely what you're saying about the gender gap mailing list, Carcharoth. I've given serious consideration, especially in recent weeks, to unsubscribing; however, I ultimately decided to stick it out at least for now because it needs some more moderate voices. Not unlike some other places connected to this project. :-) Risker (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding to Risker's comments - you can of course read any Wikimedia mailing list (or worse, IRC channel) and find silly things being posted. Generally they are very lightly moderated and have a poor signal-to-noise ratio. All that said, I'm not sure that anything that's said on that list is any more concerning than things that are often posted on-Wiki: and it is virtually the only place where people who want to work on solving the gender gap problem get together. The Land (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Several Arbcom members have chosen to contribute to forums with a long history of aggressive, offensive and even defamatory content against Wikimedians. In comparison seeing some venting on the GenderGap list after this case is fairly minor stuff. Personally I find it refreshing to read frank views there and bouncing around ideas of how change might be encouraged to happen on this project without the participants being too worried that any word they say might be taken by some passing admin as a reason to block their ability to edit this project.

The choice of an admin today to protect User talk:Carolmooredc so that only admins can edit there, is a good example of why contributors are having their discussions and making plans about this project everywhere else but on this project. The history of free speech shows us that stamping on dissenting voices rarely turns out to be healthy in the long term, some Arbom members seem to hold this viewpoint, but the majority of today's admins seem to not get it. --Fæ (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Free speech" does not apply to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and the projectsapce and all the rest of the things that aren't part of the encyclopaedia exist to support the encyclopaedia. They are not soapboxes or fora to promote one's agenda. Editors who spend more time on wikipolitics than in the mainspace are a problem—in my opinion one of the biggest problems Wikipedia has. And sine the arbs are all too polite to say so, I'll spell out the reason for he apparent disparity: both side severely misconducted themselves, behaved tedentiously, and caused a great deal of damage to the project with their bickering. The difference is that one side has a lengthy track record of high-quality contributions to the mainspace and of helping other editors improve the encyclopaedia; the other had almost no record of anything on Wikipedia except disrupting the projectspace. Had both parties had the same track record (pro and con), I'm sure the result would have been the same. It is grossly insulting to suggest that gender even entered the equation. Keep an eye on the Gamergate case if you want to see a case where both sides are more-or-less evenly matched. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have nowhere here challenged the outcome of this Arbcom case, nor the actions resulting from it. I have suggested a managed approach to handling the perceptions of a case like this, and NYB has responded to that below.

I understand your logical viewpoint Harry, however I do disagree with "grossly insulting". Extreme interpretations such as "grossly insulting" result in non-hat wearing Wikipedians fearing to ask about possible and unintentional systemic bias in the way things currently work, as they are likely to be slapped back by being marginalized; once they carry the label of "tendentious disruption" or "troll", there is no way back, folks tend to just dig a deeper hole. I'm afraid the often used tactics of labelling simple governance questions as disruption, harassment or insults are themselves unhelpful, compared to the drama free alternative of taking reasonable questions seriously, and taking the opportunity to resolve them in a calm collaborative and evidence-based way that can convince almost everyone. Were the next Arbcom to seek representation by members of the GGTF to assist with a review of potential systemic bias, this would be seen as positive efforts to address the perception problem, without resorting to dismissing it as without any merit whatsoever, nor having to confess that anything is truly wrong with the way things work right now. The potential for improvement is either embraced or we just wait for the systems to break and then we have put up with hassle of running and screaming (to quote Dr. Ian Malcolm). --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this is a bit off-topic here, but in response to a comment from Fae above, I'd be glad to give an interview to the Signpost or some other forum about my thoughts concerning ArbCom and other aspects of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to your earlier comment about the proposed decision page and comments made on it, it becomes fairly theoretical by the time the decision is published though; when a final decision is handed down, it ought to be able to almost entirely stand up by itself in effect and reason - particularly when other committees or panels manage to achieve the same, especially when they interact far less frequently. Of course, this could be more a reflection on a line of decisions which go back a very long time, than a reflection on how this specific one turned out - in which case, no one individual current or former arbitrator can be held responsible for it. Then again, I am not certain any one of them can really be given the credit for taking steps to significantly reduce a number of such adverse perceptions from so easily arising about this decision, other decisions, or the 'governance system'. Whether it's new users, the general public, or even a number of the users who bother to hang around, there is little doubt that there is at least some concern expressed in that article about Wikipedia's "system" which others have felt before too. Some users here appear to have taken offence to what was published in that article or some of the comments which are made in the aftermath, which I think are in some ways understandable. But, in saying that, I also think it's in some ways understandable why dismissive comments that are abruptly/abrasively made towards expressed concerns (even those which are felt to be unjustified) have probably contributed to these types of views arising - and consequently being publicised too. I wonder what can be done about it now though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Carch. I've responded to your post after it was brought up on gendergap here. The tl;dr version of my response - health issues prevented me from being active as a moderator for most of the last month and we currently only have one other mod, but I don't see any hugely significant problems with the threads you linked. I don't agree with all of the threads and would have at least spoken to the author of one of the posts off-list had I seen it when it happened, but even though I wasn't around to do so the problematic line of discussion was promptly called out by other list members as being problematic and did not continue. If you start a discussion about gendergap moderation, please ping either Leigh or myself; otherwise there's no guarantee we'll notice it or be able to action anything we missed that needs action. FWIW: our list of banned or +modded users is at least six or seven people longer than it was five weeks ago, we just don't typically announce publicly when we action something. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, Kevin. I have read what you have said on the Gender Gap mailing list. I'll take this to your talk page, rather than continue here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Related claim of harassment

It has been highlighted to me that the retirement notice at User:Goodwinsands makes a claim about this case that appears unfounded. This appears to be use of a personal user page to make a claim of harassment against User:Carolmooredc that I do not believe has been proven. Could an administrator or clerk either point me to where the case does support this harassment claim, or blank the text as it is appears to inappropriately attempt to support a claim of harassment by using this Arbcom case, or advise me that this is not the right forum and it is better to take this to ANI or elsewhere? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed as unhelpful per WP:POLEMIC -- Euryalus (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I just learned about this from the announcement, and I'm sure that we all agree that it's very sad, and that we all wish Secret good health and a return to happy editing. That said, I just want to make sure that the decision was based upon his responses to the Committee, as opposed to the Committee not having gotten responses from him. Is that correct? I ask because I saw some mention in talk about some e-mail responses not having been forthcoming. And I definitely don't want anyone to reveal anything that should be kept private. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  ArbCom expects desysopped admins to leave the project. It's a permanent sanction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

We did get a response regarding the previous incident alluded to and to an initial query about why he took this latest problematic action. His replies in both cases were not satisfactory. An offer was extended to allow him to resign voluntarily, with the caveat that it be designated as "under a cloud". We got no response to that.

I would like to make it clear what a serious matter it is to redact log entries. It is almost never an appropriate action, doubly so when it is your own action you are redacting. Below is the relevant policy section:

Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Due to its potential, use of the RevisionDelete tool to redact block logs (whether the block log entry is justified or not) or to hide unfavorable actions, posts and/or criticisms, in a manner not covered by these criteria or without the required consensus or Arbcom agreement, will usually be treated as abuse of the tool.

Given previous incidents of similarly poor judgement and the unsatisfactory explanations for these actions we really didn't have a choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and I understand. I take it that you did indeed get communications about the incidents themselves, and that the point about which you did not get a reply was about the possibility of taking a particular action (voluntary resignation under a cloud), rather than about his explanations for his actions. I fully trust that the Committee had a sound basis for the evaluation of the incidents, and that settles any questions that I previously had. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the committee is making an example out of one particular "issue". Perhaps you should take a look at all of the uses of RevDel. You might be surprised that sometimes the bureaucracy of the policy does not quite permit the needs of the users. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I can assure this was not done to make an example out of anyone or to highlight a specific issue. It was done because we believed this particular admin had exhibited a pattern of poor judgement involving the use of his administrative tools. That's it. A general review of the appropriate uses of RevDel is something that would need to be done by the broader community as the committee does not and cannot change site policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why the committee came down on this particular admin. The facts presented so far don't seem much more than the occasional admin overreach that we tend to let slide. Is misuse of RevDel considered a particularly egregious offense? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

A general review of RevDel's could be undertaken by any number of adminis, I've occasionally reviewed some as they appear in logs but usually feel a bit off digging in to something that usually should be deleted--is there any policy reason that admins should not review these types of actions without specific cause? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Violation of "it wasn't an official RD criterion!" is missing the big picture here - this had the effect of hiding a block action so that it was not reviewable by the community, when it was completely unnecessary (I know oversighters block named accounts that attack other users, such as "User:Rschen7754 sucks", without a trace, but this is an IP address) - it makes it look like he was trying to eliminate all traces of his action and avoid accountability for it. Such actions erode trust in administrators pretty quickly. --Rschen7754 05:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there, however I would be very hesitant with a username such as "User:Rschen7754 sucks" being suppressed, maybe RevDel but not suppression. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there another case before ArbCom involving allegations of misuse of the revdel tool? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocking and hiding is an OS tool only, and it would clearly fall under criterion 4 of the OS policy, both local and global. Besides, I had to stay fairly mild as this is an ArbCom page ;) --Rschen7754 17:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Which makes you mild and bitter? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to respond here to Hawkeye7's comment above that the Arbitration Committee expects desysopped administrators to leave the project. That is not the case. Unless we simultaneously ban the administrator, which has happened less than a handful of times I can recall in the whole history of Wikipedia, he or she is quite welcome to continue editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Fifteen admins were simultaneously blocked; twelve left immediately before or after. You wouldn't fire a bullet into a crowd with those odds of hitting someone. The Arbitration Committee must anticipate this outcome. And I am not aware of any action that ArbCom has taken to make desyopped editors feel in any way welcome to continue editing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Everybody is always free to leave at any time for any reason or no reason. When you say "the Arbitration Committee expects desysopped administrators to leave the project" you could be using the verb "express" in the sense of "to anticipate", in the sense of "to consider obligatory", or in the sense "to consider reasonably due". Brad is saying that while the committee anticipates the user concerned may leave the project, it does not pass such a remedy in the hope or belief that the user will leave the project, the choice of whether to do so remains entirely with the user. The ideal outcome is that all sanctioned editors learn that whatever actions led to the sanction are not acceptable on Wikipedia and that disregarding policy and/or community norms has consequences, and having learned that return to the project as productive editors. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen what isn't rev-del'ed of the most recent on-site stuff, and I just hope that those of you on the Committee dealing with the confidential communications will make an especially strong effort to deal with it in a compassionate way. I'm not talking about changing any decisions that you made, but I am talking about understanding the human reasons for the ways that some things might be said, and understanding that it isn't necessarily coming from bad intent. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand exactly what you are saying. Based on everything I know, one thing that would be compassionate toward the editor would be not to continue this discussion here right now. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree fully, and maybe someone should archive-box this thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Curious, why wasn't this announced at WP:AN? Nyttend (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Most likely an oversight, but let's leave it alone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure; not complaining, just trying to understand. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Now the case has closed, and one of this user [DangerousPanda] accounts was used in a admin capacity, surely there is no need for him to be using muliple accounts? Confusion details here. Thoughts? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

context made clear. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The case is closed, there's nothing in the decision regarding multiple accounts and the circumstances which led DangerousPanda to use them in the same venue have changed: therefore per WP:AGF there's no benefit to discuss his account usage. NE Ent 15:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin editors are still allowed to have privacy and security concerns, and – in the absence of abuse or bad faith – are still allowed to maintain separate accounts. A security- or privacy-conscious editor may still wish to protect access to account features like his main password, watchlist, and WP email-sending ability by using a second account on public computers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm sure plenty of users will be checking out his sock edits now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• perhaps we can avoid the grave dancing since its supposed to be the season of goodwill to all... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

C'mon, you've got to have a heart of stone not to enjoy this! Merry Christmas to one and all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to fill me in on the punch line so I can enjoy it too; for the entertainment value has completely escaped me. Maybe we should both tighten up our lug nuts a bit. Be merry and well.--John Cline (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just FYI, when I made this suggestion, it was precisely this sort of thinking that I was hoping to head off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Looking at admin = yes or no <!--Are you an admin?--> ... why does it matter whether the filing and/or case parties are admins? NE Ent 11:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

In the parties list ((userlinks)) is used for non-admins and ((admin)) is used for admins. In the past filers have needed to manually change this after submitting the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Now what would be really good here is if we had a ((partylinks)) template, which automatically added the admin stuff if the person was an an admin and didn't if they weren't.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Concur. NE Ent 11:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why?

admin: NE Ent (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

peon: NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So what's important to see about admins is very different than whats important about the ordinary editors?? (Gotta be able to block a peon with a single click! ... No need to see an admin's block log.) On a recent case workshop page, a proposal finding that distinguished between editors categories was criticized by Newyorkbrad because: Administrators are first and foremost part of the community. They are community members who are provided with some extra tools.... Now the committee is making such a distinction from the very get go on the filing. Yes, it matters, because it's yet another extension of the conceit administrators are a "higher" caste of individuals. Why not simply create a single good for both the goose and the gander template that contains whatever links are needed for any editor, regardless? NE Ent 11:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that it's because in the majority of cases (or at least the thinking when this system was designed) admins were included as parties when their is a problem with their use of permissions so having direct links to the admin actions they've performed was thought to be useful. @Roger Davies: I'm not entirely sure that's possible, and if it would be my guess is that it'd be an inconsistent hack of sorts (eg if they're listed in the admin category). When it comes to arbitration, in a sense admins are a different to non-admins because they face desysopping (or restrictions in the use of the tools) in addition to any other sanctions so having the links to admin functions are important. It's probably a discussion we could have on clerks-l regarding what links the arbs would like (or whether we could go more generic with something like ((user))). I'll add it to my to do list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

What difference does it make if there are links which are not applicable to a party? e.g. Special:Log/delete/NE_Ent -- just don't click on them if they're not applicable to a particular editor. NE Ent 12:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not like the arbs can't navigate their own way to the pages which aren't in the admin template or vice versa, these are just the most useful links to have quick access to. Is it really a big deal? Sam Walton (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

From the discussion above, I understand why the question is asked, but I also understand why NE Ent was disconcerted by it and other editors may be as well. Maybe flesh out the question with an explanation right there, as in "Are you an admin? (answer needed so correct userlinks will appear)" or similar? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the distinction (and specific templates) are most helpful only when an arbitration request rests primarily on matters relating to tool use by an admin. The {admin} template may be appreciably less useful than the {userlinks} template in situations where we are dealing with good old-fashioned user conduct disputes (not involving tools) and/or content disputes (which the ArbCom sometimes pretends they don't deal with, but handle by reframing them as conduct disputes). It's certainly quite possible that deleted contributions from an admin, or the admin's own block log, would be on point for a case. Fundamentally, admins are editors too, and we often still want ready access to information about their conduct as editors.

Ideally we would have a base {arbitration party} template (perhaps derived from the {userlinks} template, though we could probably do without the "block user" link) that contains all the user-background links that are relevant to all editors. Then derived from that – either through some sort of template code magic, or controlled by an optional parameter, or as a separate {arbitration party admin} template – we would have the additional links related to admin-specific information tacked on at the end. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

We really, really could do without the "block user" link. It's only a matter of time before someone gets accidentally blocked by an admin reading the page on a mobile device. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The "block user" link does not block with a single click. It takes you to a separate page where you confirm the user, select an expiry time, give a reason, and select other options (talk page access, etc). You then have to press a button at the bottom of the page to actually enact the block. See File:Block user 2.png for a screenshot (it's from 2007, but the only thing that's changed since then is that there are now IPv6 addresses and a link to an IP range calculator in the sensitive IP addresses box). This is of course independent of whether the link is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The only problem I can think of with having all the user and admin links for admins is length, but other than that it seems a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it might make sense to refrain from using ((admin)) when the dispute doesn't involve admin tools. However, the main reason we shouldn't have separate templates is that it's politically incorrect. Using different sets of links for different kinds of editors that perform different functions is not a sign of a "higher caste" but rather a convenience created because they perform different tasks. Being different does not mean being superior or inferior (and, in fact, I'd guess admins are the inferior "caste", if anyone is, because they get so much muck thrown at them); and as such, there is no sense in pretending that admins are exactly like ordinary editors. ekips39 00:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly can't think of a time in recent history that there has been a on an admin and it didn't relate in some way to their use of the tools. Anyways, the discussion regarding what links the arbs would like for non-admins and admins (so we can create a specific template) is a discussion best had with the arbs and since not all of them are necessarily watching here it's a discussion best had on the clerks mailing list - it's on my to do list along with a few other things when I've got some time. In the meantime, I've added a note to the preload template stating why the admin yes or no question is there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this. I can easily see how this looks like drama mongering wikilawyering but I honestly believe there's simply too much of a perceived rift between the editors with and without administrator WP:UAL; how much of that personal is simply my own bias and how much is "real" within the community I don't know -- but I do know recent examples of editors mistreated by an administrator editor who were simply afraid to file an arbcom request. Being hit upfront with an are you admin questions isn't welcoming; at the risk of dating myself, it reminds me nothing so much as the Ghostbusters being asked by the evil god Gozer "Are you a God"? NE Ent 03:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you are wikilawyering. I like Roger's suggestion to have a standard template used for all editors. If an editor has admin access, the template could add some extra links, if that's technically feasible. Jehochman ^Talk 03:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a way to do it automatically, but I can ask around. It's probably still need to be a parameter and so the same question needing to be asked on the form. Out of interest Jehochman (and since you're the only one to have used it so far) what did you think of the way the preload form worked? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It worked pretty well. Two issues: (1) the form does not pre-fill the thread heading, so I had to enter that manually, and then the heading "Wifione" appeared twice. I had to delete one. (2) What's the fastest way to determine if a user is an admin? We should have a comment in the template telling people where to look. Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added a note about the section header and how to find out what groups an admin belongs to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since there isn't a userights magic word, the best that can happen is have a template that turns into ((admin)) when |admin=Y is used. (I don't think that this is a useful use of our time) --Guerillero | My Talk 04:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Only reason to do it is if the arbs want a different collection of user links. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I could probably add functionality to MediaWiki that would allow automatic admin detection. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that would be useful. Please do,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I filed phabricator:T85419 for it. I'll work on it soon. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do that, there are a number of people who could do this as a template or at least a Lua module? Anomie, Mr Strativarius, TParis, Kumioko and several others I can think of. 108.28.162.100 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Why make something bespoke code if it could be useful to a variety of projects? I am of the opinion that our most used, non JS, tools can and should be mediawiki extensions. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Well, I think we've had one of the best ArbComs of recent times this year, and there's more than one arb I'm sorry to see is leaving. Thy've had some thorny issues to deal wih an they have, for the most part, handled them admirably. But they say a change is as good as a rest and there are some excellent editors coming in for next year, so hopefully ArbCom 2015 will be as good or even better.

Just by way of clarification, are incoming arbs permitted to participate in the cases that are already open? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, at their own discretion, if the cases are still open on 1 January. Each new arb may decide to go active on one, some, all, or none of whatever cases may still be open then. Courcelles 04:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an observation on wording, the use of "stewards are directed" seems inappropriate, since stewards are volunteers and not subjugated to ArbCom. Cenarium (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, but in most cases, once they have voted to support something, we do have to follow their direction. --Rschen7754 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think of stewards as operating on a similar basis to our local 'crats. They have some very powerful abilities, but they are only supposed to use them if there is no doubt that there is a consensus for them to do so. That means that they, like all the rest of us, are subjugated to the community the volunteered to serve. When arbcom tells them they want to see incoming arbs have their extra tools switched on, they are expressing the will of the community that elected the new arbs. I can't imagine a scenario where they would refuse to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

'Directing' people is antithetical to a volunteer driven project. One cannot be subjugated to a community one is a volunteer member of (otherwise one is not a volunteer). This recently came up in the media viewer debate, where it was proposed that "our JavaScript experts and other admins [be] directed to take any steps necessary to implement this RfC". No volunteer has any obligation to do a particular action, even if they have been made a member of a "special" group (they may have to justify their action when performing it or explain it afterwards, esp. admins, but that's completely different). It doesn't matter that stewards, or local bureaucrats, are very likely to follow through, it's about the way we interact with people in our community.

There has been a case where a steward asked for a clarification before proceeding with an ArbCom desysop a few years ago, though I can't find the link. More recently, a steward pointed out that a desysop for inactivity didn't follow protocol and had to be delayed. So it's not automatic either, and there are exceptions to implement community consensus as I'm sure you're aware. As Rschen7754 noted, stewards follow through in most, but not all, cases. Stewards occasionally decline requests for advanced permissions on a variety of grounds, the English Wikipedia (or its arbitration committee) does not have any exceptional status. "Stewards are asked" or "It is requested that stewards" would be much more in line with our community norms and values. Cenarium (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

do you have the same tantrum when you get a new gadget and stumble upon the "INSTRUCTions"? just wondering K5 the Brandama Pokeleft (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You kind of ruined your own snark; shouldn't you have made reference to "DIRECTions"? The only thing worse than pointless snark by a throw-away account is poorly-done pointless snark by a throw-away account.--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If I were a Steward, and in a bad mood, I might be annoyed at being "directed" to do something by ArbCom, who would have no real authority over me (I think). But a Steward has already said here he doesn't think it's a problem, so no need to tweak what's already announced. Instead, consider next time just saying "asked" instead of "directed"; same effect (it's not like the Stewards aren't going to do it because you just asked), but it's just more polite. IMHO. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh the bright side, it makes my fussing over admin vs userlinks (below) not the most wiki-lawyering thing on page. NE Ent 23:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As one of my last acts before leaving the Committee, I move the appointment of a Subcommittee on Verb Selection. This Subcommittee will consist of two arbitrators, two non-arbitrator administrators, two non-administrators, one non-English-speaking steward, and three banned users. It will meet infrequently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't stand for re-election?? Who told you you could do that?! There must be some mistake. Surely we can get you on the new committee, we'll just create a "Newyorkbrad" seat. Since no one wants the musty old seat that you're leaving behind ;p –xeno^talk 01:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I move that in recognition of his long years of service, Newyorkbrad is allowed one act of clemency before his term expires.-gadfium 02:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just to state the obvious, when I wrote the announcement in question I was not implying committee dominance over Meta's stewards. I wonder if the people who thought otherwise would ever ask directions while driving, then do the opposite because "nobody dares to direct me!" AGK [•] 08:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not funny, wording matters, arbitrators almost got sued in the past for an announcement on this very noticeboard. I think it's pompous and disrespectful to talk to people in this manner in our community of volunteers (I'm not talking about sanctions where such wording may be justified), but there's more to it than that. You should never neglect the potential real life legal consequences. Arbs have said on occasions they don't want to be given any kind of legal status as a group, because this would increase their personal responsibility, yet using this kind of wording contributes to doing so. And it can also have consequences for other volunteers, if you direct people to make actions, it has legal implications because it removes or gives the impression to remove the volunteering aspect. It's a widespread concern, all our policies and guidelines make sure not to give any kind of legal responsibilities to people (even if only by giving the impression). It's not a theoretical concern either, an admin got forced to delete an article by intelligence services. Most of ArbCom decisions are good on that count (they use e.g. "admins are authorized to" as opposed to "admins are directed to"), but I felt compelled to point out this particular instance. Cenarium (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"Direct" has such a wide range of meanings that it is scarcely the smoking gun that you suggest. While these discussions are great fun, I'm not sure that they're great use of everyone's time. Oh, and a very Happy New Year!  Roger Davies ^talk 17:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

As a steward, the choice of words on this page doesn't bother me much, though I think something like "the stewards will be asked/requested/directed/whatever", would make it clear the fact that Arbcom doesn't make requests (or directions) to stewards on this page, but rather on the relevant page on Meta. --MF-W 17:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, an arbitrator has to actually "direct" us to remove the rights at m:SRP... --Rschen7754 08:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Changes following announcement

Leaving a note here to confirm that per my edits here and here, I've removed myself from the GamerGate case and from the list of outgoing arbitrators. I've also removed myself from the list of functionaries as I've asked to be unsubscribed from that mailing list as well as I intend to spend most of my Wikipedia-related time in other areas. Best of luck to the new committee for 2015, especially the newly elected arbs who are settling nicely into the role from what I've seen so far. Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

I'm the jerk who proposed maybe trying to get together a panel of editors who haven't been involved in the topic to maybe review gathered sources to help frame questions for one or more possible RfC's down the road regarding such matters as possible mergers of some articles, and potentially creation of some other articles if sources warrant them, and maybe some help in devising possible sections and potentially relative weight in the existing articles. I dream a lot, and, obviously, at least a few of those dreams at least approach total fantasy. :) I do have a couple of individuals I want to consider asking to join such a panel, which might serve as a possible test case for something along the lines of a "comment committee" as I have proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content?. I intend to ask some people I would be interested in maybe taking part in what might be called a "test run" for such a group, based on what I think might be their particular qualifications in one or more related areas, later this week, but if anyone would be on their own interested in such an effort and wants to indicate that here, please, by all means, feel free to do so. I have a very real concern that some of the people I might ask to take part in the test run group might well say "no", in varying degrees of adamance, and there is no reason not to welcome anyone interested in helping out in such a way in any event. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in this - let me know if you go ahead. Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

What is the difference between an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban and a Community-imposed ban? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious difference in who imposes it, I'm guessing that it's who can reconsider it or hear appeals about it. The community cannot hear appeals of an ArbCom ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Plus there is a more defined enforcement process and sanctions enforcing it are logged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Re Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision -- ya'll have a big ol' pink edit notice saying "Please refrain from making comments on this page until the proposed decision has been posted" and yet members of the committee are making comments and responding to editors there.

If I did feel welcome to post there, I'd say that getting a decision right is much more important than getting it quickly. Futhermore, Gamergate is qualitatively different than most cases. Most arbcom cases are acrimonious, overly personalized disputes about an internal Wikipedia processes (e.g. those dreaded infoboxes) or how we cover a real world topic. Gamergate, on the other hand, is a real world acrimonious, overly personalized dispute that's been imported wholesale into Wikipedia. That, coupled with winter holiday timing, makes it entirely understandable a good decision will take longer. NE Ent 21:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

Horrible hasty decision. As a filing party in two 2014 cases, I'd certainly support streamlining cases under appropriate circumstances, but this motion passed before the entire committee had an opportunity to fully evaluate the feedback from the community. I'm specifically referring to NW's and T Canens statements regarding the bureaucratic nightmare that's going to result from editors arguing their Pseudoscience alert doesn't count for widget, or their ACM alert doesn't apply to gadget, or they're being harassed back an editor posting two Ds alerts on their page. Back up, rewind, combine Pseudoscience and ACM into a single case with a single log. NE Ent 11:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

People try all that anyway and we already have many overlapping topics. We also have general sanctions and DS for the same topic. None of this has caused the sky to fall on anyone's head and I think the complexities of this are greatly exaggerated.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the sky falling, nor do I believe it's in arbcom's power to make the sky fall. In my experience it's hard to be wrong overestimating how easily generally decent Wiki folk ending up in unproductive conflict over nuances, as indicated by some of the ARCA filings over the past few months. In the long run it'd be better use of limited committee time to deal with someone well once, rather that not so well now and again later. NE Ent 23:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Barring further information (anyone?), the case was improperly accepted. According to Deciding of requests, a case can be accepted when "an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators" have voted to accept the case. This did not happen. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members there are 15 active arbitrators. According to the votes to accept/decline/recuse/other, there were no arbitrators that recused from the case, as the tally was 7/5/0/1. An absolute majority is therefore 8 of 15, not 7 of 15. Even if you count the 'other' vote as reducing the 15 to 14, 7 is still not an absolute majority. 2 arbitrators did not vote, but the criteria at Deciding of requests does not state an absolute majority of those that have voted, but an absolute majority of active arbitrators. Doing some post accept/close mop up by having one of the two non-participating arbitrators vote post facto to accept the case (if that should happen) misses the point of my concern here. Why was this case accepted in the first place when it clearly was not proper to do so? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Looking at this further, even if we count Guerillo's comment "I will let the motion go by" as "accept" or "procedurally accept" (and to me it isn't; it sounds like an abstain to me), the vote tally did not meet the absolute majority criteria until 12:39 11 January 2015 (with Salvio's vote to accept). The case was accepted at 10:56 12 January 2015, less than 24 hours after the vote met the criteria. This violates criteria (2) of Deciding of requests. It might seem I'm being a stickler for detail here, and maybe I am, but if we have procedures in place why are they not being followed? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, but wasn't a motion passed in lieu of a case? There wasn't a case; the page was just created as a formality for logging purposes, which will hopefully be made redundant by a centralised log in the not-too-distant-future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No, a case was accepted. See the head of this very section. Further see the head of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture "Case opened and closed by motion". It is also listed at ((ArbComOpenTasks/ClosedCases)). It is a case. Sure, closed by motion, but it is a case. If it's a case, there's a procedure to be followed...which wasn't (again, barring presentation of information I'm not aware of). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

      It could be argued, I suppose, that they've fallen down on terminology. (It would have been better for them to top off Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture with a notice that doesn't mention a "case", but instead declared something like "This page created by motion to log activities related to enforcement of discretionary sanctions on CAM.") Technically, they also should have proposed and passed the motion on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions subpage, rather than Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case requests subpage.

      In practice, I don't think that there's any appearance of injustice here, just a bit of sloppiness. They've unambiguously met the requirements for passing a motion, and imposing discretionary sanctions on a topic area is well within the ArbCom's powers. If they tidy their wording (only so that future editors aren't sent on a fruitless search for a "case" that was actually just a "motion") is there any other substantial remedy that you feel is required here, Hammersoft? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• I never meant to suggest that an injustice had been committed; the motion doesn't affect any one person in particular. Had it affected a person in particular, then there would be strong reason to overturn this case and start afresh. No, rather, the more I look into this the more I see a very lackadaisical approach to the procedures that are supposed to be followed. Some past ArbComs have done an absolutely atrocious job following ArbPol and procedures. I'd hoped to see better with this newly seated ArbCom. The policies and procedures that ArbCom is to follow are there for very good reason. Not following them is very likely to lead to serious problems. In the real world, cases get thrown out and/or overturned on such points. It might seem minor, but it's not. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Personal view: Yes, there was a procedural flaw. It's now been rectified and I agree no harm was done in this instance. But it was important that it be raised, because precise adherence to the rules helps reduce contention about outcomes, especially in routinely contentious fora like Arbcom. So thanks, Hammersoft, for highlighting the issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Clerk comment. @Hammersoft: I've cleared up the wording at the top of the case page. I wouldn't read too much into it being at ((ArbComOpenTasks/ClosedCases)), that was just the best place to put it so that it could be found easily. @TenOfAllTrades: from my reading the motion is in accordance with WP:ARBPOL#Forms of proceeding ("Summary proceedings") and WP:AC/P#Motions to dismiss. The motions subpage exists for motions which are not related to cases, case requests or clarification and amendment requests (such as changes to procedures). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• HJ why / how do you think a centralized log will come about? NE Ent 23:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• It was proposed by Roger Davies as part of the Accupuncture request, and got some positive comments there. Internally the committee is working out details of a motion about it, and when we have done so (likely in the next few days, we have been intentionally waiting until this request was concluded) we will present this motion for community comment before (assuming there are no major issues arising from the discussion) implementing any necessary tweaks and voting to enact it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• So ya'll apparently are well on your way to doing what I suggested in opening the thread? So why didn't Roger say so instead of the "sky is falling" stuff? In posting what is described as a "closed" cased decision while, in fact, internal discussions are ongoing, the committee has failed to "make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases". (emphasis mine). If you're planning to centralize the log, why pass the motion? Ya'll not making a lot of sense here. NE Ent 02:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I cannot speak for Roger so I will leave that part for him. This case request is closed and complete, and our rationale regarding it is public. While the centralisation of the log may be inspired by this case it is not a part of it - indeed transparency is best served by not attaching something that affects many cases onto one that is not relevant to almost all of them (would you look at something ostensibly related to acupuncture to understand a change affecting the Israel-Palestine case for example?). See also the recent criticism of BLP special provisions originating in a case called "Footnoted queries". The centralised log proposals are still at the deliberation stage using that terminology, and there was no reason for a motion that is all about back-end processes hold up attempts to solve a dispute affecting the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Original draft

1. I don't believe that #1 (and the first part of #5) are going to create a positive impact on the encyclopedia; those are the ones this comment pertains to.
2. What is the purpose of those proposals for a central log? It's too difficult for AE admins to figure out which topic area some articles falls in? Some articles fall within more than one set of discretionary sanctions? Life is too inconvenient for the bureaucratic approach desired by at least one AE admin?
3. It was only a few months ago, wasn't it, that another editor had to put you on notice that DS regimes you imposed were no longer actually needed; did any of you (pre-existing committee members or former committee members) take the initiative to investigate on your own prior to the amendment request was filed? How about the AE admins? It does seem like the so-called centralised logs appear to have the effect of preventing any monitoring in future of specific areas, if Roger Davies comments at the motion were anything to go by. In fact, even now, the scope of certain discretionary sanctions ought to be limited as those are too-broad and should be limited to particular areas of conflict (where discretionary sanctions were apparently imposed so far).
4. The committee seems to repeatedly expands discretionary sanctions across the project fairly regularly, despite knowing that the community has time and time again refused to implement that as a matter of general course. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest the gradual interference with community policy may, in a sense, persist at a greater rate if this is adopted.
5. I think a centralised log is more prone to being subject to misuse (or should I say effective abuse) by civil POV-pushing tendentious editors who are new to an area, and will result in more regular losses for the project. Do you really expect all editors to have infinite patience when editing in an area of conflict? Do you really think doing nothing to actually curb the bureaucratic approach taken at AE for some of the petty enforcement requests filed by tendentious editors is beneficial? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, quality content building in those areas will no doubt cease as few useful editors (and administrator-editors) will be bothered to hang around anymore, let alone seek that policy be enforced against the damage being perpetrated by tendentious editors on those pages. A couple of warnings issued against one useful editor over a period of five years could be grounds for a sanction while a new tendentious editor will get off with one warning, and will be free to disrupt the project (and we'd be none the wiser that it was an old tendentious editor banned after the first year or two, or his recruited friend).
6. Any central log which works on the basis of five years of sanctions is far too long, though this overlaps with my three preceding points. I think I've written too much and don't have time to shrink it now, but...there you go. One shoe does not fit all sizes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Ncmvocalist. In response to your numbered points:

• re (#2) Central logging makes it much easier to supervise DS actions, to ensure that admins are properly applying them. It also makes it easier to pick up frequent flyers, who hop disruptively from topic to topic.
• re (#3) A central log makes it much easier to see where DS are no longer needed.
• re (#4) Almost every new case comes with requests from the parties for DS, so the addition of topics is community-impelled.
• re (#5) The points you raise here have nothing to do with central logging. Warnings (ie notifications) lapse after one year and do not appear on the central log.
• re (#6) This is a substantial reform of the current set up where logs go back, in some cases, to 2007. It is much easier to courtesy blank a central log than umpteen case pages.

 Roger Davies ^talk 07:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Purpose noted, so is the current AC actually going to monitor/supervise/vacate where no longer necessary if a central log is established, or is it just going to continue to wait on everyone else to figure it out like its predecessors apparently did?
  • Yes, but my comment wasn't so directed (or limited) to new cases; I make reference to older cases and DS being imposed by motion, despite comments from editors within the topic that the area named is too broad and despite failing to seek wider input. Just because there are some issues in a few areas in a massive topic, the whole massive topic does not warrant DS. Also, there are occasions where parties bring a case asking for DS (as it can be effectively misused against opponents just as effectively as it can be used against problematic editing). I do not see how one can reasonably even suggest that those are (or were) "community impelled".
  • I wasn't referring to DS alerts or the alert logs; I was referring to warnings imposed as sanctions in the sanction logs (which is how the AE threads are closed). You may need to re-read in that context.
  • By the way, I think courtesy blanking is an excellent idea no matter which case you are referring to, whether logs are central or not. That said, even if central logs reduce it to five years, it is still pretty excessive. Is three years not enough? And while a central log would obviously involve one page, not sure how it will be that much easier to courtesy blank without seeing how a first draft of the logs looks. Can a draft be done so we can comment on that too. Thanks Roger. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested edits:

"Where there is a conflict between any individual provision enacted prior to 2015 authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control."

"An editor who has an unexpired alert in one area under discretionary sanctions may be sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic, also under discretionary sanctions, provided the nature, or the content, broadly construed, of the edits in the two topics are similar."

NE Ent 10:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, NE Ent. The purpose of the first provision is to cover all conflicts, past and future. The addition for the second is spot on,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by an admin working at WP:AE: I'm in favor of centralising the log and support the proposed motion. I recommend, however, making a determination whether, and if so how, the already existing entries are to be copied or moved to the central log.  Sandstein  13:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Implementation will be done by the clerks, probably with arbitrator input. What you've asked about is, I thought, already implicit in the motion but the idea is to move all existing entries, topic by topic, leaving links to the central log behind on the individual case pages as the stuff is moved.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support based not so much on the merits of the concept but on the principle that ArbCom should be able to use its judgment as to how to manage discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support – the idea of reform. The current system evolved in an ad-hoc way to deal with new problems as they came in. It is inspiring to see Arbcom taking the time to sort this out properly. Via Template:Ds/alert we now have a central log of alerts, maintained by the edit filter. It doesn't seem amiss to have a central log of sanctions. It's my guess that one or two follow-up motions may be needed when people actually try to use the new system. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Now posted at 'A/R/M,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the motion being voted on are welcome on the motions page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Can one of the arbs involved in the case please explain the reasoning behind implementing discretionary sanctions based on a case with no findings of fact or remedies against the parties? Is the whole point to kick any future problems to AE? I'm asking because one of the few remedies to pass encouraged new editors to work on the article, but DS tend to have the opposite effect on editing and lock in the status quo. Ignocrates (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Congrats! --Rschen7754 03:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (I guess:) --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Evidence where? Surely not at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence again? —Cryptic 17:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, it needs to be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Evidence. I've asked a clerk who actually knows how to work the CaseNav template to make it point there. I'll create it for now. Courcelles 17:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Plenty of evidence here: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 21 that Pigsonthewing was in violation of their restriction.

Per WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Enforcement of restrictions: "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year."

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Original announcement

General comment...

This is not going to work.

The press blowup is only partly because people don't understand the minutae of Wikipedia process and haven't read all umpteen-hundred refs and evidence bits.

It's mostly because people are grossly offended by the implication that either on purpose or by neglect, this is letting the Gamergate bad guys get away with abusing the system and women.

If you are going to comment at all, and you just did, you need to address the actual criticisms. Reinterating AC longstanding process and where this case stands is absolutely positively not a real answer, and you are probably going to get pilloried in the press for having done so.

The actual criticisms do include some hefty doses of ignorance and detail mistakes, but the elephant in the room remains, and remains unanswered here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The press blowup is because the people writing the stories don't care about Wikipedia process, and in any case a "man bites dog" story will sell more than a "the sun rose today" story. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a moral outrage story in the press. Such do not work if there is not a credible, articulatable wrong being done, and do not spread if it's not a widespread perception. That the press exists to generate attention is both true and not relevant. That is their job, and they do so by both calling attention to true things and hyping things up. This has gotten some legs.

Ignore those legs, and why they're there, at your peril. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is Arbcom's statement to the community then I think a proper reply might be to tell them to kiss our ass. Let's admit for a minute that some of the press coverage misunderstood the proposed decision. Give this statement to them. Don't give it to us--who understand the process or participated in it and recognize that you screwed it up big time. We need an explanation of how this decision got written like this in the first place, not some fucking pablum fit for a press flack. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Where would the committee publish a statement intended for the press besides on-wiki? LFaraone 04:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If they made a statement to the community it sure would be possible to differentiate the two! Protonk (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I got right away that the statement was intended for the press. I do, however, agree with Protonk that it should be made a bit more unambiguous, but I would suggest the ArbCom ask the Foundation to publicise the statement on their behalf as opposed to posting it on-wiki, where the intended targets aren't going to read it. Again, the press generally doesn't care about Wikipedia functions, hence the reason for the misconception. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We discussed this matter with the Foundation. Their preference was to have it posted on-wiki, and for it to be referred to when they receive press enquiries as a statement from the Arbitration Committee, since the Foundation obviously cannot speak for us on our behalf.

To me, it would seem inappropriate for the Committee, an ostensibly independent community body, to publish its statements in the WMF Press room or on their blog. LFaraone 04:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a good statement, but where is the Wikimedia Foundation? They are the people who receive the fundraiser money -- shouldn't they be involved in supporting the community, especially when some of English Wikipedia's most dedicated editors come under attack from unfair reporting? Shii (tock) 04:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, this was done here. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/01/27/civility-wikipedia-gamergate/ Shii (tock) 01:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Arbcom has obviously put a lot of effort into making a statement that attempts to comprehensively address, er, everything, but I can't escape the feeling that if the statement was intended to have a point, it got dropped somewhere along the line. You've spent more than a thousand words providing extensive background where it wasn't necessary, and overdetailed descriptions where five words would do. It takes 400 words for this statement to even get to the point of saying that it's being released to address mischaracterizations by the press. A further 300 words describing what the"Gamergate" dispute is (hint: if someone's reading this statement, it'll be because they already know what Gamergate is) and defining a "proposed decision" instead of just saying that the text was a working draft and moving on. By the time you get to the 500 words about how actually, yes, you're sanctioning both pro- and anti-gamergaters in similar ways - which is what people were angry about in the first place - and oh, by the way, Wikipedia has rules and here's a list of some of them...anyone who's made it that far has completely lost track of what it is you were trying to explain to them.

  You guys are in a tough spot and I don't envy you your position. The media coverage has had serious mistakes that are reflecting poorly on a group that's never done the things that people are angry about. But this statement isn't going to fix that; it's too wordy, too esoteric, too legalistic, and too lacking in actual explanation or refutation of the talking points that caused you to write it in the first place. Even as a deeply-involved Wikipedian who understands jargon like "discretionary sanctions", I can't figure out what you thought this statement was telling us that the PD didn't already. If you're inclined to explain the rationales behind your decisions, I think the community - and probably the media as well - would be much more persuaded by a frank, honest "debrief" Q&A after the case closes than by a statement assuring us that you're only doing what you're doing because it's what you're doing, and also because reasons and stuff. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Did anybody with PR or marketing experience review this? You wouldn't send an amateur to argue a court case or do brain surgery. Packaging a story for the press takes a bit of skill. The obvious mistake here is that the statement is wordy and lacks sound bites. For instance, "We don't ban people for the views they hold; we ban them for screaming and yelling." Jehochman ^Talk 04:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• There was assistance from a few WMF employees to review and edit the statement before being released. And, yes, I do agree that if we were going to release this statement, it needed to be shorter, cut down to the bone of a central point and evidence. I fully expect that the intended target (the press) aren't going to understand what on Earth the statement is actually saying, and what it is trying to prove. Anyone who has ever served on a real-world committee knows this is what happens when things get drafted and edited by committee (which is why such tasks are often formally assigned to a small subcommittee, which did not happen here). Even worse is when committees try to draft something important and vote on it in about 72 hours. Personally, I wish we had written for the community and not the press. I thought this approach was unlikely to change any minds either inside or outside the community (and might make things worse, especially externally), and I opposed issuing it for that reason, among others. And, yes, I know that was only very partially an answer to your question, Jehochman. Courcelles 05:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

First, do no harm. This appears harmful. How about a strategic striking out and rethinking before moving forwards?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is an entire committee and advisors behind this, obviously no one is allowed to strike out parts of it arbitrarily. Shii (tock) 05:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't waffle. That would just make things worse. What was said is right, but hard to follow. You don't have a big problem here. That fellow who himself was banned has been delivering sour grapes to everybody he knows in written a blog post that was picked up by the press. The Guardian ran a story, but so what. They are predictably anti-Wikipedia. Nothing said to them will change their tune. I recommend you stay the course. Don't over react. If somebody from the serious press contacts you for a statement, get a spokesperson to field the call promptly. They should keep it simple and use homey analogies that everybody can understand. Jehochman ^Talk 05:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Since when are The Guardian "predictably anti-Wikipedia". Yes, there was an idiotic article on GG, but in the past there have also been many pro or neutral articles on Wikipedia from them. An attitude of anyone who say bad things about us must simply be because they are anti-Wikipedia is not helpful. -- KTC (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Links? I'd like to read those articles. Haven't seen them. Jehochman ^Talk 11:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

From around last Wikimania time. -- KTC (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shii:, yes, this was approved by an absolute majority of those active on the case. Courcelles 05:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you took any advice from the WMF while drafting it? It's basically not written in a way that works as a press statement, in my view. The Land (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Asked and answered already. NE Ent 12:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Better is the enemy of good enough. While I agree with the comments of Fluffernuffer et. al. regarding be concise, as a past and current member in real life of various committees, I'm sympathetic with the difficulties in coming to a consensus which is both inclusive and concise. A camel is a horse designed by a committee is a truism for a reason. (For explicit clarity, what I'm saying is I'm sympathetic to the difficulties of the committee as a whole, not that any individual(s) of the committee should be criticized for this outcome).

As the recent Rolling Stone debacle makes clear, the press is not necessarily made up of Fair Witnesses, and regardless of how well the committee conducts themselves, statements will be taken out of context to serve individual reporters / publications agendas.

At this point, with the statement made, editing it in response to legitimate committee concerns will be counterproductive, as the press will just dissect that.

Finally, it appears to me Jehochman is volunteering as Wikipedia:Arbitration Commitee/Press Release Clerk and suggest the committee talk him up on his offer if it feels the need to make further statements. NE Ent 12:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• FYI: ArbitrationGate controversy.- MrX 14:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "ArbCom, the site’s highest governing authority ...". Pretty much validates my point about the press above. NE Ent 15:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to make things crystal clear to any journalists reading the statement, I would like to see approve/dissent/recuse/abstain count at the bottom. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So they can pit one parent against the other (metaphorically speaking)?? Better to hang together, rather than hang separately. The committee gets enough grief without being nickled and dimed individually by the press. NE Ent 16:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There are serious media outlets interested in the inner workings of this case and how members came to their decisions. I have a rough draft for a writer from the AP, here is a screen cap. I broke down some 'partisan' wording, but Pro-GG and Anti-GG aren't my final descriptors, just something I used while documenting the case.

Dave Dial (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@DD2K: *puts my digital anthropologist hat on* The only way to figure out how someone came about to the final decision they made is through asking them. Any move to figure out a persons POV by looking at what they did/didn't vote for is going to show some serious flaws. *takes hat off* --Guerillero | My Talk 00:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You can leave your hat on (as Joe Cocker would say). With my historian hat on, you cannot figure out how someone came about to the final decision they made through asking them. This is because of cognitive dissonance. People will subconsciously rewrite the process to conform with later events. The only way is by looking at documentation generated at the time of the decision. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @Guerillero:, I may have worded that post poorly. In fact, I know I did. But I didn't say you can extrapolate someones POV based on just votes. In any case, that is just sheet 3 of 4, and I barely added any comments(the little red boxes are comments) into the votes yet. In any case, it's a rough draft and for later. Not a 'gotcha' type thing at all. Thanks for the comment though. Dave Dial (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As someone who analyses documents on internal evidence, I think you will also find a good deal of information from observing the changing votes during the case. As something obvious, at an early point several people were going to be banned from WP; later, nobody; in the final result, one. Most of us who changed votes gave some indication why. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the vote changing and page history are important. I saw that perhaps several were going to be banned from the initial draft, and voiced my displeasure. I have been following the case and the off-site coordination relatively closely, and I do understand that Arbs had to make tough choices. I just very much disagree with certain aspects of the decision. Because of the message it sends and it gives a blueprint of how to get ArbCom to rid editors from topics. Thanks for the response. Dave Dial (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there is anyone on the committee who does not disagree with some elements of the decision. That's the very nature of majority decisions: not all the excision makers will agree (and it is therefore only a covenant form of words to say that arb did or did not do something--the real meaning is that the decision is made by the majority of those on arb com at the time, and even so, their may not even be a plurality in their rationales for the decision. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to parse this awfully written statement seems to support the following apparent positions of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee:

• The Arbitration Committee does not care that editors were exposed to coordinated off-site harassment, and is in fact deliberately ignoring that.
• The systemic bias of wikipedia in regards to gender issues continues to be deliberately ignored.
• The belief of the committee that "gender-related dispute or controversy" is a narrow enough issue that a ban on editing articles "broadly related" to it is no-big-deal. (Such a "broadly construed" ban would mean they can't edit the article for The History Channel because it has programs about the Suffragettes.)
• The false-sense of impartiality, with a stated belief that there is a "Gamergate" and an "Anti-Gamergate" side, and that both "sides" should be treated equally.
• Feminism isn't an attempt to bring balance between the male and female population, but a "point of view" that must thus be "fairly" balanced out with Anti-Feminist points of view. Thus wikipedia must view "Feminists" with caution.

If these are true. Then the Arbitration Committee does not deserve the support of the community. --Barberio 17:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See, the thing is I think the Arbitration Committee thinks it said "We are a complicated and community led group that settles internal issues and applies our policies and have done so fairly.". What it's actually put down in writing for journalists to print sums to "It's our policy that Feminism is just a point of view, and we need to give the Gamergater's a voice". --Barberio 17:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The document does not refer to a "Gamergate"/"Anti-Gamergate" dichotomy, nor does it even refer to two sides. This was an intentional wording choice. The other assertions made also do not appear to be supported by the text, nor does your interpretation of "broadly construed" match administrative practice at arbitration enforcement. LFaraone 17:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You perhaps may not understand that Journalists are not restricted to just reading your official sanctioned press release. They are quite able to read the arbitration case and it's talk page, where Arbitrators have made some... unwise comments. This statement doesn't actually say anything to reverse those stated positions.

You also don't get to claim lack of addressing an issue as defence for lack of addressing an issue.

And you may well wish that there will not be a dispute about how the topic ban should be applied, but it seems like you've left it hugely wide in scope for people disagreeing about what is and is not covered, and what articles someone is and is not supposed to edit. I make an absurd example, to point out that you can't just use a 'can just be implemented as written' hand-wave, you're going to punt this back to the community to decide on a case by case basis how and who gets banned from where and what.

I also think that perhaps you honestly think that "If only the journalists really understood how wikipedia works, and what the committee does, they would report in a way that reflects well on us". If so, I'm telling you that even with knowledge of how wikipedia works, the headline here is "Process with a systemic gender bias results in a decision that entrenches the gender bias". --Barberio 17:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Journalists could certainly read the case pages themselves, but given evidence so far I wouldn't hold my breath! -- KTC (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Any Journalist worth their salt is going to be able to skim-read the talk-page and spot an Arbitrator saying "And, by the way, there's the "anti-GamerGate" side off-site and they too have been active on-wiki." or possibly just get pointed in the right place to look. --Barberio 18:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

GWH and Jehochman's comments seem well taken, but I'd like to know what GWH thinks the "elephant in the room" is. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the elephant is that one side of Gamergate is destructive to civilization, and the other supports civilization, and that moral equivalence is a grave danger. The bad guys should be sanctioned harder, and those defending women from online bullies should be given a pass if they get over excited in their defenses. Jehochman ^Talk 00:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's about the size of it. As it stands, ArbCom's statement will quite probably be perceived as saying that what you write in Wikipedia articles doesn't matter to ArbCom as long as you are unfailingly polite on talk pages. That is a proposition readers and the general public will never sign up to, and rightly consider an absurdity in a project aspiring to produce an encyclopedia. Readers do not care about civility. They care about content. (This is also a key point in another arbitration case currently in progress.) Andreas JN466 00:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be clue. In some disputes one side is "good" and the other is "bad". You have to talk the good people down and remind them to be civil, and then turn around and ban the bad people as hard as you can. In everything we do, we should evaluate who supports our values, and who doesn't. Wikipedia stands very strongly against online harassment and intimidation; it's part of our core policies. When a group comes here with that purpose in mind, we exclude them. If some good people get overzealous in defense, we support them, correct them, and calm them. We don't sanction them. Jehochman ^Talk 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In short, Jehochman nailed what I was trying to say. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman's summary covers my point of view as well. This debacle has utterly destroyed my faith in ArbCom's ability to resolve disputes. Novusuna ^talk 06:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Me too. Even taking into account how messy this Arbitration was, ArbCom fucked this one up. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this anything new to you all? You all sound exactly like I did back in 2009, when ArbCom did pretty much exactly this in WP:ARBMAC2. There we had two similarly unequal sides: one that wanted to base WP terminology on reliable sources and common usage, and another that wanted to base it exclusively on nationalist feelings. ArbCom hammered down both sides, much like here. This bullshit's been going on for ages, and no one speaks up about it until it's their case that ArbCom fucks up. And that's why the problem lives on: until the community stands up and fixes the system, this is going to keep happening. And the problem is systemic: it's a completely inevitable by-product of conduct-only dispute resolution, where conduct can be brought to final arbitration but content can never be. This system favours content warriors, of whom there is an inexhaustible supply (counting socks) and whose content goals border on a religious mandate over the people they wear down with their constant civil POV pushing. Until the community stands up and makes binding content dispute resolution, this story will play out again and again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom and article content

The statement says,

The Arbitration Committee does not address the content of Wikipedia articles. As such, the preliminary decision by the Committee is not a referendum on the content, perspective, or neutrality of the Gamergate controversy article. The Committee does not endorse or censure the content in the article in question.

This is not entirely true. Content work is governed by policies, and thus forms part of any assessment of editor conduct, according to longstanding precedent. While the Arbitration Committee does not rule on the content of an article, it certainly can and does rule on the quality of content added or proposed by the editors involved in an arbitration case. Editors have been sanctioned in past cases for adding content based on unreliable sources, for misrepresenting sources, for violating BLP (biographies of living persons) sourcing policies, for writing or seeking to write biased content, and so forth.

Now, the question is: has content contributions' compliance with policy been appropriately weighted in the proposed decision? Andreas JN466 23:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this case at all as my time has been limited but I agree with Jayen466 in that falsifying, warping or otherwise manipulating sources is far more deleterious to the 'pedia than incivility. If arbcom pays no attention to this, then we are all sunk as we are defenceless. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Well, I see a couple of sourcing analyses. Hope there was more checking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, BLP vios and misuse of sources factored into my decisions --Guerillero | My Talk 00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. The old adage of "ArbCom does not rule on content" is as oft-repeated as it is misleading. While the ArbCom does not specifically direct the wording of articles, it most certainly does judge the quality of sources that editors use, and sanctions editors who do not adhere to NPOV and other content policies in their editing. The formula for an ArbCom non-content content ruling is simple:

• WRONG: Foo, Bar, and Baz are do not represent content which adheres to WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT/WP:RS/WP:BLP, and should not be used in our article.
• RIGHT: Editor Doe failed to adhere to WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT/WP:RS/WP:BLP when he used Foo, Bar, and Baz in our article.

The 'trick' is to phrase a content ruling as a conduct ruling. You can find variations on this theme sprinkled through the case archives. (Look for cases which cite WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, WP:WEIGHT, and/or WP:BLP in their principles; there will usually be an explicit or implicit content ruling in the findings which follow. Last year's Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control, for instance, specifically finds violations of WP:WEIGHT among the sins of four different editors who subsequently received topic and/or site bans. Last year's Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics topic bans a number of editors, implying that their personal biases prevent their editing in a constructive, NPOV-compliant manner.)

I don't necessarily have a problem with ArbCom doing this; one cannot produce sensible responses to (for example) civil POV-pushing on fringe topics if one cannot acknowledge the asymmetry in the quality of content presented in support of different viewpoints. And it would be rather odd if the enforcement of WP:NPOV and WP:RS – core Wikipedia policies, essential to our mission – fell outside the remit of our highest conflict-resolution body. However, I find the insistence that the ArbCom doesn't rule on content has grown to become a rather tiresomely precious form of lawyerly hair-splitting.

That said, the advent of widespread use of discretionary sanctions in contentious areas has (somewhat) reduced the pressure on ArbCom to directly make these sorts of content-as-conduct rulings. The ArbCom slaps DS on a topic area, and punts the content rulings back to whichever editors (and unfortunately admins) happen to show up at WP:AE. This sort of deferral is either an abdication of ArbCom's responsibility to support a central policy pillar, or a triumph of community participation over ArbCom hegemony, depending on your preferred view of Wikipedia governance. (Of course, since AE decisions are ultimately subject to being appealed to and overturned or endorsed by ArbCom, the ArbCom remains ultimately responsible for affirming these content-as-conduct rulings—albeit with one additional layer of cover.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand how Arbcom can be expected to rule on the quality of content added, or sanction editors for adding content based on unreliable sources, misrepresenting sources, violating BLP..., writing... biased content, etc. if they "don't rule on content", no matter how you phrase it. How can they determine if the sources have been misrepresented without checking the sources and then comparing what they say to what the WP article says - i.e. ruling on whether the wording is okay? And how willing can we really expect Arbcom to be to find that [editors'] personal biases prevent their editing in a constructive, NPOV-compliant manner when the POV in question is presented as a legitimate interpretation of feminism (noting that the current discussion has been placed as a subheading of Gamergate discussion, and that editors on one side of the dispute have clearly positioned themselves as "feminist defenders of WP against an unending torrent of bullying trolls" or something like that)? Especially when there are so many outside forces with an ax to grind about the gender imbalance among WP editors? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that The AC does not address the content of WP articles it is also true in my opinion that that The AC indirectly affects the content of WP articles. Perhaps some of my colleagues do not think so, but it was abundantly clear to me for as long as I've been editing, because I have always needed to edit within the rules in some areas set by the AV, such as in BLP or pseudoscience, and it affects the editing also in many areas I normally avoid. I certainly ran for the committee on that understanding, and it is my impression that many of those who voted for me voted for me specifically because they though my editing experience would be helpful.

Over the years it has been visible that AC has to some degree addressed the improper behavior of those individuals who are active and constructive editors of content differently than the improper behavior of those who are not. It is always a question to what extent it should do so, and it's clear that any decision it makes either in general or in an individual case is going to be equally criticized. I do not see see solution to this, but I certainly think that in the past the committee has been somewhat less willing to give differential treatment than AN/I, and I see us as a corrective to the excesses of AN/I in this matter--AN/I is in my opinion sometimes too much influenced by strongly expressed personal views. In this particular case the extent to which the on-wiki contributions of the various parties was helpful was certainly taken into consideration. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed alternative phrasing

Would the Arbs consider altering the phrasing? I took the trouble of drafting my own version. Feel free to edit and rework accordingly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's far, far too easy to read and has no stifling psuedo-legalese language. It's almost a clear explanation of the process, consequences and even mentions appeals? A journalist might almost learn something from it without having to scour half-a-dozen other pages. This should never, ever be adopted as a revised statement about the case. Ever. Ravensfire (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

On a side note, one necessary change to my version would be to restore the "this was text approved by" part as I was just putting that there because I thought it would look weird to have that part in my userspace. Just in case they miss it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As an entirely personal opinion, that's an excellent version of the statement. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the Foundation is relatively good at this sort of thing. That's why they pay them the big bucks, I assume, since they have to be paying them for something.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Invoking the Benevolent Dictator

Per WP:JIMBO, perhaps this is one of those times when he is indeed needed to set aside this fiasco and regain some dignity for the project he founded. This Committee has punished those who did right, token-punished a pile of throwaway accounts, and left the field wide-open for the 2nd wave of throwaway accounts who are now active in the topic area. What say you, @Jimbo Wales:? Tarc (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Behold brave Sir Tarc, most impartial of observers, takes a principled stand against heinous villains who perform odious acts such as editing Encyclopedia Dramatica pages to defame those seeking to expose their trolling misdeeds. Surely this is a man of great quality whose wondrous works shall be spoke of in the annals of wikilore! Heil Tarc! We who are about to be sanctioned salute you!--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't be pointy, TDA. I see nothing in Tarc's statement that deserves you deliberately mocking him- were your sanctions not enough in urging you to be more civil? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A party to the case is the last person who ought to be invoking WP:JIMBO. Besides, why should we expect Jimbo Wales to come promptly to an informed decision on the matter, when the entire Arbcom panel has taken this long to consider the evidence in spite of a sincere desire to expedite the case? The basis for the appeal, as far as I can tell, is a combination of fear-mongering and a personal feeling of injustice. But there's a very simple refutation available here: if "those who did right", in Tarc's estimation, are really so obviously in the right, why are they so few? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the obvious point here is that even the most cursory examination of the activities of throwaway accounts shows that they reflect a wide spectrum of views. I'm really not clear how making a partisan stand, not supported by any objective evidence, will resolve the internal on-wiki disputes. Mind you, proposing partisan solutions to the controversy de jour is not new. During the Climate change case, we restricted many people, from both sides of the debate. This didn't stop people accusing us of undermining the science supporting Climate change and thus accelerating the imminent destruction of civilisation (and the world).  Roger Davies ^talk 09:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think your obsession with turning everything into "being about a conflict between two sides, that we rise above" is a combination of Tunnel Vision and False Impartiality. Turning a dispute about tenacious refusal to acknowledge overwhelming cited scientific consensus, into one of "two sides in a debate", is pretty much the perfect example of this. A group that is focused on pushing false information onto wikipedia to further a massive harassment campaign, can not be said by anyone to be equivalent a harm to someone who lost their cool while under harassment by that group. Wikipedia is not Fox News, please stop trying to make it "Fair and Balanced".

And to be honest I just barely maintain WG:AGF in the face of your statements. Particularly when you seem more intent on protecting processes instead of people, and going out of your way to explicitly not care about the content rather than just be moderately content-agnostic as I believe was the original intent of that ArbCom restriction. At the moment your stated views seem to indicate that ArbCom is acting more like a dysfunctional social-club rules committee than the arbitration body that Wikipedia needs. --Barberio 11:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I should think the fact that you have trouble imagining how someone could disagree with you (or with a particular "side") in good faith is pretty good evidence of bias. Starke Hathaway (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about sides. There shouldn't be talk of an "anti-gamergate" side, that also needs to be viewed with suspission. Because the aim of the so called "anti-gamergate" side in this is to maintain Wikipedia's policies. What are we supposed to do when supporting NPOV and the BLP policy can be seen as a "picking a side"? If the arbitration comittee's true position on this devolves to "teach the controversy" and ascribing everything as merely "points of view held by opposing sides", and that every group needs to be treated with equal weight no matter what their intent and grounding is, then they're becoming as useful to an encylopedia as the Texas School Board. --Barberio 13:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If it is your belief that the editors sanctioned at ArbCom are being sanctioned for maintaining Wikipedia policies, I would invite you to reread the case. Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Membership in an "anti-gamergate" side is demonstrated by opinions expressed about the topic. You say you're defending Wikipedia's policies from violations of the gamergaters; the gamergaters say this is propaganda. Well, guess what? Arbcom is finding that the "defenders of Wikipedia's policies" have in fact violated them on numerous occasions. Your appeals to conspiracy theory etc. are absurd because you are holding that Gamergate supporters are somehow not justified in making claims about their own motivations and intents. BLP policy may not defend the users of an Internet hashtag as a group, but it certainly does not require stating opinions of them that are potentially insulting to new editors. Further, it does not in the slightest follow that identifying "sides" to a controversy is an endorsement of treat[ing] every [perspective] with equal weight - your teach the controversy rhetoric is entirely uncalled for here, as you are speculating about motives that you have absolutely no evidence for, and frankly I think you're coming close to casting aspersions on Arbcom.

But aside from that, if you've ever identified someone as an "anti-feminist" - a term I seem to hear dozens of times daily nowadays - in spite of not thinking there are legitimate sides to that discussion (Balanced POV and Feminist are actually the same thing after all, per your statement on the PD Talk page), then there's something very inconsistent about your reasoning. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You understand that it's possible for us to see all the edits that have come from your IP address right?

I also note that the mentions of an anti-gamergate were made in defence of treating "both sides the same" and not considering extant circumstances or giving benefit of the doubt to the editors that were trying to uphold BLP policies on their own.

And I guess I should make this clear, I'm not close to casting aspersions on Arbcom, I'm outright saying that their handling of this issue was clearly flawed. Particularly when the previous pattern was to give a wide leeway to conduct when enforcing BLP policies. If I am to assume good faith, then my only other option is to assume either rigid obsession with structure and policy, or just banal short-sighted incompetence.

Arbcom have strongly re-enforced the systemic gender bias of en.wikipedia, at the same time as making it clear that you should not risk enforcing policy under fire of coordinated off-site harassment because the ArbCom will string you up if you lose your cool. --Barberio 11:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'm aware. I have no idea what you hope to accomplish by pointing it out, other than to sound intimidating. As for your claims, I might be willing to entertain them once you've provided actual evidence. Even if you doubt that the controversy at large has "sides", it's transparently obvious that the Wikipedia dispute does. You appear to literally be arguing that Arbcom messed up because they applied the same principles to all the established editors involved. As for BLP, my question remains: if it's so obvious and clear-cut that the editors that were trying to uphold BLP policies on their own were in fact doing so, and that they were justified in doing so, why didn't a significant number of other editors show up to help? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Here's a reliable source supporting the notion that there is an "anti-Gamergate". 76.69.75.41 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a much better idea to take this to an RfC before invoking Jimbo or taking this to the foundation. As such, I've created a rough draft of a potential RfC on ArbCom conduct. Barberio 13:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• It should be note that Jimmy Wales has supported this decision on Twitter. From the article in The Verge: Bernstein, in a follow-up post, called Wikipedia's decision "majestic indifference," saying that it ignores the real problems of harassment. There is "no thought for volunteers who have been mercilessly harassed and hounded by braying, taunting gangs," he writes. "And not a single word of care for victims against whom Wikipedia has been and is being weaponized." Wales, for his part, has responded to critics on Twitter. "It's one thing to fight to keep articles clean," he says. "It's another to violate policies in the process." And as for the larger debate? "Not everything has to be a battle." Andreas JN466 14:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hear hear. TotientDragooned (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• As an arb, I found myself faced with a choice between two undesirable results: endorsing bad on wiki behavior, or endorsing bad off-wiki behavior, and I was very acutely aware that any possible decision was going to be wrong in some direction. I suspect that the posted statements during & after the case from other arbs will show the same thing. They will also show that different individuals among us had different views where the balance lies, and I doubt any of us is completely satisfied with all aspects of the decision, though a majority thought it the best balance. Though committees have their disadvantages, one advantage of a committee is that it does provide a mechanism for balancing the individual views, and is therefore on the average more equitable than relying on any one individual. another advantage is that when consensus fails, a voting process does inevitably result in there being some decision. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The elephant in the room, regarding public perception of Wikipedia

A bit of a rant here, sorry. This line of thought was inspired by my comment above re Arbcom and content disputes. A big issue has been made about how the Gamergate case is linked to gender issues, and how female editors are supposedly going to be scared off of Wikipedia by any action that might possibly be perceived as giving pro-GG views the time of day. This also comes hot on the heels of the GGTF case, and indeed the formation of GGTF in the first place.

All of that discussion is brutally missing the point.

It is utterly impossible for the percentage of editors on WP identifying as female to go up significantly, and utterly absurd to expect it to happen, as long as there are official recommendations for female WP editors not to do so. The idea that new female editors inherently need protection from the voices of experienced editors because they are male (and not because their experience gives them an upper hand in wiki-lawyering, or because of their willingness to WP:BITE) is gender-essentialist, patronizing and sexist - just like the idea that any criticism of any action taken by a woman constitutes "misogyny". Yet we keep seeing "feminist" proposals based on exactly that premise. We cannot expect a significant increase in the editor population are consistently bullied by experienced editors, and we especially cannot expect an influx of female editors if they receive that treatment and additionally get condescended to by official policy and thus made into targets for resentment. (And no, rectifying the gender imbalance by driving out male editors and expecting the women to stick around is not a viable strategy; there's no sane way to implement it.) The very fact that the phrase "diversity hire" has ever been uttered ought to make this point perfectly clear.

The solution to the problem of male editors harassing female editors is not to impose "corrective" (i.e., sexist; there's no such thing as "reverse sexism", it's just sexism) measures, it's to recognize that harassment is not acceptable and discipline the editors who engage in it, no matter how experienced they are. The logic Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) presents in his excellent essay "The Unblockables" (if you haven't read it, I strongly encourage you to drop everything and go do so now) does not simply have binary application; there is a clear pattern on Wikipedia whereby experienced editors are given a ridiculous amount of leeway, to the point where some older accounts can barely go a month without being dragged to ANI and given yet another laughable slap on the wrist, while new accounts get indeffed for a single 3RR violation. There's also an obvious gradient there; it's not like the problem can be reduced to a few problem users.

Little wonder why I edit from an IP - I want no part of those politics, at least not if an account is at stake. I'd rather let people know what city I live in (on websites where I do have an account, I usually make no real secret of that anyway) and deny myself a permanent WP identity, than have to play a game of defending a new account, having to dodge accusations of being an SPA, dodge criticism for knowing too little about WP policy, dodge criticism for knowing too much about WP policy, and worry about getting dragged to SPI if I dare try to start over. And for what reward? The opportunity, if I last long enough, to participate in inflicting that same hell on others while exchanging barnstars with my buddies?

To hell with that. Stop the madness. Stop the cycle of bullying, and restore WP's civility pillar. Toss out the old, bad eggs; they only get worse with the passing of time. Only thus can the problem be solved. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you put such weight on the wise words of Beeblebrox, then consider the essay User:Beeblebrox/fuck off, which for most of its existence has meant "I only tell people to fuck off if they deserve it". This essay was written in Dec of 2011, wording strengthened in Jan 2013, and curiously softened & essentially retracted in Jan 2014, right winning a one year Arb term WP:ACE2013. There is no such thing as an anti-Gamergater, and there was certainly no bullying or any of that nonsense on the part of "the 5"; there were only those of us who upheld project policy in the face of vicious, misogynist assault. None of us are eligible for the "unblockable" shield; only voluminous content creators are allowed that protection. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You have no blocks in the last five years. It's rather absurd that they proposed to sanction you, rather than issue an admonishment. Jehochman ^Talk 14:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Then again, we have "Tarc has already been sanctioned in three previous cases (Feb 2012, Oct 2013, Oct 2014, Oct 2014)." I guess your extra lives were used up, so this sanction is justifiable. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, J, I was sanctioned for keeping sanctimonious hordes at bay who didn't think the rest of us should be allowed to look at Muhammad pictures, for a false flag shtick in the Manning case that was in hindsight ill-advised, and having the gall to want an account suspected but not proven to be a banned user be allowed to post on Jimbo's talk page, when Jimbo regularly allows such things. They went 1 for 3. So, good thing I never dropped the c-word into conversation or sabotaged a WkiProject, though, then they'd really have thrown the book a...oh, wait. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's assume you were right in each case. Why do you keep getting sanctioned? Can't you figure out how not to let this happen over and over again. Instead of focusing on actions of others that you can't control, focus on what you did that lead to the sanction, and change it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Dammit, Tarc, can't you just go along to get along, already? What are you doing, trying to change the social order. ACCEPT YOUR PLACE OR BE BANNED. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See, I think Hipocrite has just put a finger on a real problem. If your goal on Wikipedia is "trying to change the social order," you are not here for the right reason. Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

21:45, 10 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-238)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence ‎ (Reverted hatting by TRPoD. However right you think you are, I don't think you have standing to hat another editors contributions to the ArbCom case. Let the arbs handle it.)

19:52, 28 March 2005 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . m South Vietnam ‎ (→‎Army)

17:27, 28 October 2004 (diff | hist) . . (-268)‎ . . Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ‎ (Disentangled NM SecState lawsuit from Acorn allegations)

04:08, 22 March 2005 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Voice over IP ‎ (→‎See also)

Three of these things belong together; Three of these things are kind of the same; Can you guess which one of these doesn't belong here? Now it's time to play our game (time to play our game). Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever point you are trying to make about me is irrelevant to the discussion of whether Tarc's behavior is proper. I decline to play your game, but if you think I've violated policy, I invite (nay, encourage!) you to bring it here or here. Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for an unabashed single-purpose-agenda-driven account such as yourself to cast doubt on an account with 2.5k article space contributions. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What does it say about you, then, that "an unabashed single-purpose-agenda-driven account" seems to have an understanding of Wikipedia policy better in line with the Arbitration Committee than yours, O wise one? Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Presumably that having "an understanding of Wikipedia policy better in line with the Arbitration Committee" might not be a good thing. The topic title says it all. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman, there's 2 ways to answer that; one would be a flippant way, that all I'd have to do to avoid future sanctions in similar cases was to write a few dozen Featured Articles, as that is the ASOI (Arbcom Standard Offset for Incivility). The regular answer would be...this is as good as you're going to get. IMO, I have turned down the dial from 11 for say the 2010 era to more of a 3-4 at present, which was acknowledged by several reasonable Arbs in this case. I cannot suffer fools any more gladly than that. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you put your efforts into writing a featured article, that will probably keep you away from controversies, and win you a whole bunch of new friends who'd look out for you. The FA crew are some of our best editors. They always welcome new participants. I've only written two featured articles, but it was really helpful to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 01:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc:, you are entitled to your opinion about your actions, but it is not reasonable for you to accuse others of harassment and then suppose that you are in a position to dismiss the same charge laid against you with any objectivity. Also, I didn't say anything about "anti-Gamergaters". As for Beeblebrox's other essay, I don't see your point - it seems to me that he's still holding himself to a rather high standard, all things considering. It's one thing to get angry and on rare occasions hit "Save page" when it's not the best idea; it's quite another to spend months expressing the battleground mentality for which you and others are being sanctioned. And as for the idea that a history of writing Featured Articles would exonerate you for this, that is exactly what I am arguing against. I mean, I'm sure you don't think celebrities should be automatically judged less harshly for crimes in the real world, even if you like their works. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed the underlying sarcasm in Tarc's comment about how a history of featured content writing is grounds for exoneration. That was a shot against ArbCom's past actions, not a value statement on whether content writing should lead to immunity. Resolute 23:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I was not sure about the sarcasm, but I was hoping to find common ground. I can't guess offhand what specific past Arbcom actions are being referred to, but to the extent that it's true that FAs earn lenience from Arbcom, I'm arguing against it. There are plenty of people out there capable of writing FAs; who knows how many WP has already scared off? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that WMF does not care about women

Between this ruling and the GGTF ruling, both of which unfairly target women and minorities, it's no wonder the WMF was finally called to task by global media. It's about time they received the same level of criticism as the GamerGate hordes they're trying to protect. I guess white men need to band together to drive women out of their homes for the sin of trying to participate in an online community. This nonapology for supporting GamerGate is ridiculous. I'm not sure why the ArbCom is throwing their support in with a group of men who seek only to destroy the lives of women, but it is absolutely reprehensible. 64.208.122.50 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

They're not trying to support GamerGate, and anyone who claims this has already made up their minds about the whole situation. I agree the entire thing was less than ideal, but the reality is that their hands are tied with regards to off-wiki incidents. And when one "side" is operating entirely by throwaway accounts compared to the other "side" being established editors that actually give a fuck about Wikipedia's goals who are being relentlessly harassed both on and off-wiki by the side operating the throwaways, there is only so much the ArbCom can realistically do. Unless you're familiar with how the ArbCom operates (Hint: they do not take content disputes as cases) you've no right to criticise them over what is, by all accounts, a messy, fucked, and divisive case. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I feel I should note a contributing reason Ryulong got banned fullstop is because off-wiki sites were planning to abuse Ryulong's (at the time guaranteed to pass) 1RR restriction to harass him. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at 4chan, 8chan, and the rest of the sites tied to GamerGate support, and start doing everything in your power to make their lives living hell. Otherwise, shut the hell up. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is pretty ridiculous and unfair, when you think about it. "This guy was getting harassed and was edit warring in retaliation. Let's restrict him to 1RR." "Good idea." "Oh, they'll just harass him even more then? Nothing we can do about that. May as well ban him." They've essentially elevated his punishment from 1RR to a site ban because he was getting more harassment. Kind of a strange precedent, no? SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Which would you prefer: Being removed from a site entirely or being allowed to remain on the site albeit under conditions that would exacerbate the harassment you're facing already? You need to remember that Ryulong was one of the five editors 8chan was specifically gunning for (The other four only got topic bans). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

5/5 is a pretty good result, let's not pretend KiA didn't get exactly what they wanted from this case. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

4/5. TarainDC did not get banned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD didn't either. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that they didn't leave it up to him. If I were getting harassed, I'd rather it be my decision to leave a project I've dedicated hours and months and years of my life to. If they switched to a site ban only because he was being harassed more, then they're essentially punishing him for receiving harassment. That's not his fault. It sets the precedent that if you harass an editor enough, WP will ban them just to be rid of the bad PR and drama. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I said it was a contributing factor. Ryulong has been before ArbCom in the past, which was why the Arbs quickly jumped to sitebanning him first. The 1RR would have been a last chance, but given the off-wiki discussions turning it into a cruel mercy and the fact that Ryulong has a quite extensive history, the siteban was the only way to go.

Also, why do you think I brought up WP:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair during deliberations? I would have preferred remedies similar to what was there (i.e. a shoot-on-sight for apparent SPA throwaway accounts and a notification that the article's become part of an external controversy), but that didn't happen. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not wrong, and I don't mean to seem overly hostile. I completely see where you're coming from here. I understand that Ryulong has quite a long and checkered history here and, in a vacuum, a site ban might make sense. But not when connected to the overarching campaign here. The siteban makes sense if the goal is to quickly tone down the heated discourse and drama in the topic area, which seems to be ArbCom's reasoning behind it. Unfortunately, that decision has basically codified a way of silencing editors and, more disappointingly, given the harassers exactly what they want. Of course Ryulong wasn't an angel here, and had he kept his patience and not edited in a battleground fashion, he would still be here today. But ArbCom, in searching for the easiest solution, also gave people who are actively canvasing off-site exactly what they wanted, which to me seems damaging to the project in the long term. I don't disagree with your logic, I just think there's a piece missing, which is that banning someone for being the recipient of harassment (which is really what this is, otherwise the move from 1RR to siteban doesn't make sense) is not a good look, no matter if there's a logical reason behind it. SinglePurposePartier (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's also be perfectly clear - the GamerGate hubs continue to organize harassment with respect to Ryulong - they are attempting to prevent him from gracefully accepting his ban by aggressively edit warring on articles that he was focused on during his decade long career here - cf [3], [4], [5], and that's just a small sample. You want to know why Ryulong isn't going to go away for a year and come back refreshed and renewed? This is why. Arbcom, are you going to do something to help here? Hipocrite (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Start reporting those trolls for stalking. Just because a user is banned does not make the edits they made prior to the ban instantly revertable. Not to mention there are a couple LTAs whom Ryulong had the displeasure of dealing with before this shit blew up. Also, NBSB has retired in protest, which is only going to make the PR situation for Wikipedia and the on-Wiki reputation of ArbCom even worse. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do you want me to report them? Are you going to block them? Hipocrite (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

AN/I immediately comes to mind. IIRC, harassment even against banned editors is not tolerated. (And I do not, and never will again until the linked is rescinded, hold a mop.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand how editing an article that a banned editor "was focused on", when that editor can reasonably predict the changes and has no reason to stick around to see them, without any demonstrated intent to draw the editor's attention to the changes, could be construed as "harassment" in any way, shape or form. These are changes that the communities in question seem to agree upon; when I look at the talk pages for the articles in question, I consistently fail to find any evidence of anyone else taking Ryulong's side of the argument. What message are we sending if we allow the wishes of a banned editor to continue to dictate article content, regardless of the arguments presented by others and in spite of consensus? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I also have absolutely no idea why you think any of this has anything to do with "gamergate hubs". By your own argument (since you're flinging the term "LTA" around), Ryulong has had enemies on Wikipedia since long before Gamergate was a thing, probably at least as far back as when he was desysopped. And these are articles about Japanese tokusatsu shows. What on earth has that got to do with the Gamergate controversy? This smacks of the same guilt by association that Gamergate supporters have been complaining about the entire time. Why is anyone who has a beef with Ryulong assumed to be part of a "gamergate hub"? Or did you mean that he's getting swarmed by sexually viable ants from a colony lacking a queen? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

When I said LTAs, I specifically (as you correctly note) did not mean anyone affiliated with GamerGate, and I apologise if it appeared that was what I meant. Yes, Ryulong worked on tokusatsu articles, which was where he encountered the LTAs I'm referring to. I also only mentioned the "gamergate hubs" (and not with that term, because I do not acknowledge such a thing exists) because their behaviour was relevant to why Ryulong got the axe (i.e. they were planning to exploit Ryulong's 1RR, as Newyorkbrad explicitly noted when opposing the 1RR remedy for him). Do not put words into my mouth. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I can vouch that I've been on those talk pages, arguing against those edits (in contradiction of the claim that nobody is arguing against these edits but the ghost of Ryulong) -- which, honestly, I see no reason to believe are "Ryulong's side". Ryulong was debating about using Condor or Condol, for example, and the edits that were reverted were for the totally unrelated Taka/Hawk. The reason these edits were invalid has nothing to do with Ryulong, and everything to do with that the animanga wikiproject (and ENGVAR, honestly) has consensus on using the official romanized names for topics, regardless of whether they're Engrishy or not. Please...please keep all your wikidrama out of the animanga wikiproject, guys, we don't need you interfering with our procedures just because you hate someone who used to be a member.192.249.47.186 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I've been notified that the pages aren't part of animanga, they're part of tokusatsu. Still, I believe the same concept applies, and I still don't see how these edits are linked to Ryulong.192.249.47.186 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Vote totals please

Given that this statement was not unanimous and includes what may be controversial content, as a voter in arbcom elections, I'd like to know the S/O/A on this statement, please. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, not that I'm accusing it of such, but Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-30/ArbCom_and_Orangemarlin. Hipocrite (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Has the committee determined if it will release vote totals with respect to the highly misleading statement? Hipocrite (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: I've started a thread about whether to release a vote count. (Individuals, of course, can say how they voted; I noted above on this page that I had opposed it.) Courcelles 03:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The vote count was 8-2. Courcelles 04:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

And I was the other person who opposed it. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the committee recently closed or declined a case about this or the historicity of Jesus. Could someone please point me to it? I don't know where to look. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Can someone give a succinct summary of why these sanctions were meted out with the TB on GG itself? The ban on GG makes seems obvious, but I just don't understand the rationale for the overly broad ban.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

They weren't. That was an early draft wording which went through much change. The actual topic-ban covers: "(a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b)".  Roger Davies ^talk 09:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the time, that's still a very broad area. With the given example that at it's most "broadly construed" the topic ban covers The History Channel for having documentaries about Suffragettes. Functionally, this is exactly what the combatitive parties wanted, prevention of the editors targeted from editing in a wide scope of articles.

I'm sorry that you dislike the criticism people are making, but I think people are starting to get tired of your dismissive and deflective attitude towards it. --Barberio 10:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The scope is to keep people who are topic banned from moving into the closely related areas of Men's Rights or Feminism and continuing the dispute. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as the History Channel is neither (a) Gamergate, (b) a gender-related dispute or controversy, or (c) a person associated with (a) or (b), I don't think your concern about the ban's scope covering it is realistic. Now, I could see how the documentary itself would be covered under the topic ban, or how the History Channel could be covered under it in some alternate universe where the channel is primarily known for its coverage of suffragettes, but I see that as more of a feature than a bug. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic area of suffragettes is very definitely linked to gender, and there are lots of controversies related to suffragettes. In addition, there are also lots of controversies related to gender-specific actions within the animal kingdom (for example, same-sex coitus or sexual congress has been discussed extensively on- and off-wiki for many species), and it would also cover just about anything related to sex, reproduction, some aspects of genetics, etc. Risker (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I must confess to being a little confused by your response, since you seem to be agreeing with me while your tone suggests you don't agree. To be clear, my position is as follows: Suffragettes are definitely covered under (c) as people related to a gender-related dispute or controversy. A network that runs a documentary on suffragettes is not itself covered, as it meets none of the enumerated criteria, unless the network itself somehow becomes predominantly known for its position in a gender-related dispute or controversy. (Here's an interesting edge case: Lifetime.)

As for the rest of your response, you seem to be confusing gender with sex (they aren't interchangeable). I don't think it's common at all to talk about "gender" in biology or genetics, or among nonhuman animals, although admittedly that's not my area of expertise. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

One reasonable workaround might be "admins can, if asked at AE or AN, make reasonable exception to this for constructive edits to more peripherally-related topics". Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In response to Starke hathaway, the problem is that the decision itself does not differentiate between gender and sex, either; in fact, it's not particularly clear why "gender" is added to discretionary sanctions based on the findings and principles. And unfortunately, in a lot of topic areas, "gender" and "sex" are used fairly interchangeably. To be honest, it would have made more sense to add "philosophies related to social justice" to the DS than to add "gender", because it's the former that have been bigger battlegrounds in relation to the overall GG topic, even without mentioning the term "Gamergate". Most of the problem edits in that general topic area wouldn't fall under the GG DS.

Guettarda, are you suggesting that anyone who's already been warned/advised on the GG topic should have to go to AE to get permission to (for example) improve the referencing for same-sex relationships in penguins? It's a controversial subject, it's gender-related.... Risker (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, with respect, I think the decision does differentiate between gender and sex in that the topic ban uses the word "gender" and does not use the word "sex." Expressio unius est exclusio alterius, after all. Incidentally, a quick Google Scholar search of "penguin gender" (without quotes) returns no relevant results on the first page ("relevant" here meaning they contain the word "gender" in the sense of meaning something a penguin has). -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps reading our article on gender might be helpful; gender is generally considered to encompass aspects of sex, sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual identity, gender identity, gender-specific behaviour, sex-specific behaviour, and a large number of related subjects. That would encompass my penguin example. Risker (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid WP is not authoritative on use of the word "gender." The reliable sources are clear that gender and sex are not the same thing. Also you may want to have a look at this as the language you are citing was not in fact adopted as part of the topic ban, as Roger Davies noted above. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Missed your correction edit. I'll grant you that gender encompasses elements of sexuality in humans, but it makes no sense to consider penguin sexuality to be under the umbrella of "gender" as penguins don't have genders. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, now. That's one of the controversies about penguins. On what authority would you say that they do not have genders? And if gender is a broadly encompassing term (whether or not Wikipedia is authoritative, it's certainly got lots of references linked there which correlate with my statement above), why do you believe it is a concept restricted to humans? Risker (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll count that as a controversy I remain blissfully unaware of. We're going a bit far afield here, but I say it's a concept restricted to humans because it's a human social construct. As well to say ants have "architecture," birds of paradise "fashion," and sloths "satori." -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I always thought ants were supposed to be engineers, not architects? Nonetheless, I think I've made my point, that there's a huge amount of room for interpretation here, and that the restriction isn't actually on-point. I've left you a link on your talk page for your reading amusement as I think we've pretty much taken care of this issue. Risker (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wonder if simply adding the word "human" in part b would be enough to clarify the necessary scope, without getting into all the arguments about penguins and such? Courcelles 20:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of broad remedies and phrases like "broadly construed" is to prevent wikilawyering. Sure, an absurd reading of the remedy would put penguin sex in the scope of the topic ban, but there's a reason we have humans to enforce these decision and not robots; I can't imagine any admin at AE interpreting these remedies as applying to penguins. I certainly wouldn't, and I've been active at AE for several years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that the arbitration committee has never undertaken any kind of review of the application of its discretionary sanctions, but there were plenty of times when I saw "broadly construed" stretched a very long way in its interpretation when I was an arbitrator. That you wouldn't do it is good news, HJM. There is no proscription from others doing it, though; in fact, some might see this as a feature, not a bug. Risker (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)