Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

The Devil's Advocate banned

Original announcement

I understand that this is not original action, but rather a follow on from an earlier proceeding. I also understand that this is likely purposeful, but unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible), this action seems entirely opaque. As I said, I understand that sometimes there is no way around this to prevent harm to third parties. Still, I would exhort the committee to be as forthcoming as practicable in these instances to avoid the air of the star chamber which attends such announcements. In the interest of disclosure, I'll say I was often at loggerheads with this editor. That's all, and happy New Year! Dumuzid (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. He hasn't edited WP since October. How is banning going to stop whatever it is that he was doing in the past 3 months and what was he doing that necessitated a site ban without a single diff? --DHeyward (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

(Speaking generally here, because I'm recused on this issue). I'm alarmed at this opinion that has appeared both here and above, that Wikipedians can harass other Wikipedians as much as they like, as long as it's not happening on-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I think people are so used to diffs and evaluating things for themselves that off-wiki evidence is immediately doubted and ignored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking specifically, that's not my opinion. It's clear that a site ban doesn't change anything here. If you would like help fighting it, the the bright light needs to be shown on it. Or, per WP:BEANS nothing needs to be said since nothing was happening here. But these types of announcements are like taking the worst parts of functionally "doing nothing" and fueling it with WP:BEANS. What conduct was stopped vs. the inevitable digging that will occur to understand who was harassed and to what extent? Really, it might be better to skip these announcements if the bans need to happen to stop harassment. For the victims sake, not the blocked user. --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, if GW does not wished to be alarmed, she should stop making stupid straw man interpretations of what people are saying. "Wikipedians can harass other Wikipedians as much as they like, as long as it's not happening on-wiki." said no one ever. Star chamber proceedings make folks uncomfortable; "ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities," said Schroeder and Wagner, The committee can't fix either the responsibility of maintaining confidentiality nor the flack you'll get for doing it, but you can improve both the approach to notifying the community of sanctions and your own maturity in responding to the inevitable criticisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

References

• Responding to GorillaWarfare's comment above, while I can't speak for everybody, I definitely do not think that Wikipedia should ignore harassment of other users just because it occurs in other venues. All I ever really want to know are a few non-sensitive details regarding the situations for which editors are banned due to private evidence - if it was done as part of a long-term and/or egregious pattern, whether they've been given adequate notice, their options as far as appeals are concerned, etc. One problem that I've often had with ArbCom's handling of such matters is that they have oftentimes failed to communicate their decisions in such a way as to elude the perception of unwarranted secrecy. It has made the committee appear as an unaccountable body with the authority to make decisions outside of due process or community oversight. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• When we have to protect the privacy of victims, it is difficult to find a way to communicate these decisions in a way that satisfies people with completely valid concerns about transparency and fairness. And, frankly, there is a vocal minority who appears willing to dismiss any instance of harassment, no matter how much information we provide. Gamaliel (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• At that level of harassment, it should be an "Office Action" and they don't elaborate on "why" because it's detrimental to victims and the organization. Making it an ArbCom remedy is problematic because ArbCom exists to resolve community disputes and is expected to be somewhat transparent. No HR organization publishes firings for harassment, they publish policies against it. There is no global announcement that employee A harassed another employee and is now terminated for harassment. They are just fired. And for many a good reason. TDA, however, is a living person that ArbCom just publicly accused of harassment with no venue to respond to that characterization. This is the reason it needs to be an office action, if it's based solely on off-wiki behavior, because the risk of these pronouncements is too great, the information presented is too one-sided and lacks the "dispute resolution" mandate and replaces it with "terms of use" enforcement. If the evidence is as strong as postulated, an office action should be easy to come by. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Office actions aren't going to happen in cases like these. There is no way that the WMF would take over the responsibilities of ArbComs on 291 language encyclopedias. These are en.wiki's problems and these are the structures we have in place to deal with them. Gamaliel (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've left a note on WMF's Trust and Safety manager James Alexander's [1] page about concerns I think some of these new sanctions entail. He sounds busy at the moment. I disagree that this can be a responsibility of ArbCom without some tie-in back to a Wikipedia dispute that bounds the accusation of harassment. Particularly, "protecting victims" is exactly what the WMF Safety office does and ArbCom is not equipped to protect anyone or even decide what level of protection is necessary. ArbCom members are chosen from the WP community with no formal expertise beyond familiarity with Wikipedia. The example given on James' page was a future employer learning of these latest indefinite bans for off-site harassment with no context or bounds or details. One of the purpose of Arbcom being public is that such accusations are bounded within the decision and gives the accusation context within an on-wiki dispute (i.e. a finding of article "wikistalking" might be WP harassment but so would offsite IRL "camping in their front yard stalking" - context/seriousness is important). Without that context, no accusation should be publicly made and a simple Terms of Use ban by the WMF office is necessary because the potential real life consequences that accusations can bring. Being "Banned" is not such a big deal and well within ArbCom's role in dispute resolution, but accusing them of a potential crime in a vague "off-site harassment" statement is not okay and WMF needs to review it and hopefully implement it in a way that protects everyone. --DHeyward (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would love it if the WMF decided to take responsibility for harassment complaints. But they haven't, which sort of leaves us to do what we can. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Probably not if they have to do the leg work and investigating. But ArbCom requesting it after investigating is probably doable. It creates accountability and review and it gets ArbCom out of the accusation business. ArbCom emailing its conclusion to office employees, they review it, issue Office Action for TOU violation. It's not like they would be flooded with requests (no more than Arbcom could handle). There are some behaviors, though, that should be dealt with by WMF and offsite harassment is one. --DHeyward (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• If you can somehow get the WMF to take over responsibility for these issues, go for it. Others have attempted for years to get them to take over a small subset of incredibly serious matters (far more serious than what we have here) without success. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's not whether WMF will "take over" as that would require WMF to agree with ARbCom. It is, rather, a jurisdictional problem. ArbCom should be forwarding their results to WMF for action. I find that it's rather ridiculous to say that en-wp ARbCom has jurisdiction over harassment coming from "external sites" but if the "external site" is Commons, they can't do anything. It's pretty clear that the role of ArbCom in evaluating offsite harassment is part of an aggravating circumstance and not original jurisdiction. If TDA was on Commons making the same statements, would ArbCom defer or act? That's not an academic question, but drives home where ArbCom ends and WMF begins. --DHeyward (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• This, of course, depends on the WMF's willingness to do the work you describe. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I can think of at least one contentious case where they’ve placed a global lock for harassment; most of the related drama was on Commons (which of course has no ArbCom), mainly because the user was a major contributor there and already blocked here. Those discussions parallelled this one in several ways: complaints regarding lack of transparency and allegations of hidden agendas were only answered with statements that the issue had been raised by an independent party and thoroughly investigated by a group of impartial individuals, without revealing any specifics regarding the victim(s) or the means of abuse. I don’t see how kicking these situations upstairs would do anything to resolve the underlying tension between openness and privacy-protection. Indeed the WMF staff are arguably both more susceptible to pressure and less accountable to the community than ArbCom are, so I’d just as soon see the buck stop here. (I am ignoring the question of legal liability, on which I don’t consider myself qualified, although I‘ll be interested to see how the WMF responds to DHeyward’s request for input.)—Odysseus1479 23:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I completely understand - it's a balancing act between keeping everyone reasonably informed while safeguarding the confidentiality of the involved parties. Anna Frodesiak's suggestion in the Soap discussion seems like a great idea. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes her suggestion does sound like a good idea. The last thing we want to do is perpetuate the harassment by repeating it. If the community really wants us to ignore offsite harassment ok, but I think it would be a grave mistake and I'm pretty confident that the WMF isn't going to take this responsibility over. The events of the last year suggest however that most people want us to be more active, not less. That the first act of the new committee has been to act against harassment should be applauded. Doug Weller talk 10:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• And, speaking just for myself, it is; thank you, everyone involved in this case. It is great to see ArbCom stepping up more on these issues. Ironholds (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• In parallel with my clarification above in the Soap discussion: this matter was raised during the transition period and acted on by the 2016 committee. It does have a certain symbolism, but the happenstance of timing shouldn't be overinterpreted as if we were seeking out a ban, or looking to make an example, as our first act. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'll endorse what Opabinia said. The 2015 committee was a vote away from a ban when the year rolled over. That it was this committee's first action instead of last year's last action should not be seen as having any special meaning, it could easily have been over with yesterday and almost was. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed this user's +tools (Pending Changes reviewer and Rollback). Thanks, Nakon 07:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is not whether off-wiki harassment ought to be considered or not, the question is whether ArbCom has jurisdiction, whether ArbCom is competent enough, whether ArbCom is the best venue for this and whether there was due process. My own likely answer to all of these are no, no, no and no. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Re #1, you may wish to review the relevant policy, WP:OWH. ArbCom, and admins for that matter, can act on off wiki harassment. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Though I'd hope it is clearly obvious that average admins do not have access to tools or other sensitive private info that would allow them to act properly onwiki to actions offwiki (verification that an editor is using a specific offwiki account for example, even if account names appear to match since spoofing on social media is trivially easy.) The appropriate access to these tools is highly limited to start due to potential for abuse and should only be to those vetted, and of which I don't necessarily think being on Arbcom (a public vote, compared to a Request for Adminship) grants. --MASEM (t) 12:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

To add, while ArbCom members may not be the persons in the position to connect a onwiki editor to an offsite account, once that has been demonstrated from those in that position and evidence given to ArbCom, ArbCom members should be the ones to determine what offense was done and what action to take. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• For some reason I assumed Arbcom only dealt with On-wiki stuff only.., Personally I don't think Arbcom should deal with Off-wiki stuff at all, I myself have never been harassed but surely if you were you'd contact the Police or something ?, Maybe Arbcom should be "the next superheroes" and look something like this . –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You can only call the police if you can prove the identity of the harasser and the harassment has reached a level where the police are willing to get involved. And of course the Lightbreather case last year tangentially involved off-wiki harassment which took place during the case. The committee was never certain of the identity of the harasser and for that reason didn't act. It did act during the case where the identity of a different harasser was confirmed. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, speaking as someone who has been harassed off-wiki I totally agree ArbCom should have the capacity to factor in off-wiki behaviour in whether someone is allowed to edit, and I'm pretty tired of hearing "just go to the police" from people who have never been subject to harassment and so don't know what the experience is like.
  • If someone is harassing users in other venues, that has implications for the smooth running of the project and whether people can edit, and will invariably spill over into the project itself. I would argue that it'd be irresponsible for ArbCom to not be willing to deal with it: it's going to inevitably become their problem in a more clearcut way so why not try to solve for it at the earliest opportunity? And aside from the practical implications for community disquiet and arbcom workload, it just plain sucks to be wandering around Wikipedia trying to contribute knowing that the community contains people who spend their spare time trying to undermine, harass and insult you. It doesn't make you want to contribute to that community. It makes you want to leave. And hearing "oh, our hands are tired, this is out of our jurisdiction, maybe you should wait until they harass you here?" - hearing that nobody cares enough to do anything about it - makes that worse. ArbCom has a duty to look after the project. That includes avoiding situations that makes good people want to leave and never come back. And that includes dealing with harassment, much of which happens off-wiki precisely because it's historically been treated differently and not subject to sanction.
  • Going to the police is a nice idea in theory but in practice doesn't work; police are normally very ill-informed about internet-related issues, very unwilling to deal with them, and the actual law varies dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Most of it comes from the era where harassment was heavy breathing down the telephone; it's not designed for the internet. And even if you end up in the perfect scenario where police are well-informed or willing to listen, happy to work on the problem, and backed up by robust laws designed some time in the last 15 years, that's of precisely 0 help unless the person who is harassing you - and their ISP - live in the same legal system as you. It simply doesn't work for these kinds of issues a lot of the time. And what "arbcom shouldn't handle it, just go to the police" means in practice is that nobody handles it. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, very few Wikipedia editors have the wealth or influence to get the police to take them seriously even if they have a strong case and the law is on their side. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• • Firstly Davey2010. Remove that pic from this thread, those 2 arbcom members did not consent to their image being used like this and secondly, I would not be calling them "super-heroes", their motto regardless of the comic they belong to will always be to "Stand for Justice" ..don't think this arbcom knows what that is.....also I'm reminded of a famous line from one of those comics-2-movies...."You can either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain"..I'm sure this applies to most (if not all those) long standing wikipedians that were banned by the arbcom or administrators unjustly (according to them)..--Stemoc 03:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So, to summarize:

• Based on properly verified off-wiki evidence, arbcom sanctions an editor per its responsibility as clearly laid out in policy.
• It then announces such sanctions with no explanation.
• It includes in such announcements the statement: Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#The Devil's Advocate banned
• Arbitrators then get all cranky when editors attempt to discuss the sanction.
• Have I missed anything?

Per Prodego, simply say: For <serious, repeated, etc> off-wiki harassment of <group> on <media> Y is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. Add The committee regrets that, due to Foundation privacy policy, it is unable to provide any further explanation. Skip the "Discuss links" and the WP:AN notification.NE Ent 17:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. Moreover, a simple rubric would have three beneficial effects. First, it would help refute the beliefs, common in some circles, that ArbCom only bans users who harass Important People like Arbitrators, or that ArbCom’s "harassment" bans all concern WP:OUTING and that anything goes as long as you don't violate the cardinal rule of the club. Second, it would help editors close to the issue to distinguish regrettable actions from those that are bizarre or inexplicable. If A.B. Clump, baseball manager, is thrown out of a ballgame for "using a particular word that umpires always frown upon," well, it's too bad but you know how A. B. gets sometimes. If he is thrown out of the ballgame for attacking pigeons, well, maybe it'd be a good idea to give him a holler and find out what on earth is going on here. Finally, decisions should also instruct the community, so that it can learn what is and what is not acceptable. A general description of what lies beyond the pale could help people anticipate what is and what is not acceptable. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm willing to explore changing the ways we do announcements, but I fail to see how Prodego's suggested statement would satisfy complaints that we can't release private information. And because we can't release that information, we can't include that part about "of <group> on <media>". Gamaliel (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If <group> is public and <media> is public, naming them does not release "private information" and nothing in the TOS or policy prevents it. So, are <group> and <media> public or private? If this discussion is to proceed fruitfully that should be the first question answered. L. Villeneuve (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The victims of harassment in both of these cases were not public. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

We're all ultimately "not public" by some definition - the question is whether <group> in this instance public or private? "Bob Smith" is private, twitter handle "BeyonceFan99" is public. It seems unreasonable even the medium of communication here is treated as private information: e.g. email, twitter. If you're suggesting policy prevents the release of any further details please identify which policy. L. Villeneuve (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the difference between:

"Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned for off-wiki harassment."

And:

"For repeated smack-talk and hate speech against an editor non-admin on Team Fortress 2, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia."

Or:

"For threatening sexual harassment against an female editor by email, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia."

It doesn't violate anybody's privacy, and it would give a clear reason for the ban. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Edited. 21:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

We will not reveal any details about the victims of harassment, including gender and administrative status or lack thereof. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The decision is not yours to make. In time, you will be made to obey the will of the community. 50.45.233.119 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is indeed the will of the community that the Committee that it reveal details about the victims of harassment, then you could easily start an RFC to demonstrate this and amend the relevant policies. Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal, why does gender or administrative status of the recipient matter when it comes to harassment? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said it did. It was just a generic descriptor I pulled out of my ass, which could easily just be left as simple as "editor". I've slightly modified my examples. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that Reaper Eternal, I think that it is clear that we (ArbCom) need to work on the way we make such announcements. There is certainly a balancing act between what we are permitted to reveal per the privacy policy, what we should reveal to protect recipients of harassment, and what the community at large wants (and deserves) to be told about such matters. As Gamaliel said above, he's willing to review how we make such announcements, I am as well, and I am sure are other committee members. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So leave out "<group> on <media>" and just do the rest of what I've suggested. NE Ent 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we know what TDA said for his defense? 67.44.192.161 (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No, private statements made to the Committee will remain private. TDA is free to release whatever details about what he said to the Committee he wishes in whatever off-wiki forum he wishes. Gamaliel (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As a banned user, he might still be able to edit his talk page, so perhaps he could post his side of the story there. In that case, it wouldn't be a matter of keeping private statements private, so would the ArbCom object to that? Everyking (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• As a general principle, I've avoided commenting on ArbCom stuff. I only noticed this because 1) I still have TDA's page watchlisted, and 2) It's New Year's Day so I'm not at work, and actually popped into Wikipedia as I still do from time to time. I have no personal knowledge of any of the specifics, other than my observation that TDA could be quite disagreeable when we disagreed as editors--but I was never harassed or observed any conduct that would warrant this sort of sanction. Having said that, I was thinking about what I could say that would give context to the sorts of things that come privately before ArbCom, and I came to the stunning realization that even though I served between 4 and 6 years ago, there are still things that I know about that I cannot make public, because the severity of the allegations would still harm identifiable living people. For those of you who think the opacity of ArbCom is improper in this case, I challenge you to find any former member who agrees with you. Ethically, transparency takes a back seat to not harming living people when it must. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to banning people for off-wiki harassment. I do, however, object to banning people for off-wiki harassment without presentation of evidence, without even so much as a specific claim of wrongdoing. Secret trials based on secret evidence (and/or "disappearing" people), without even giving the accused an opportunity to defend themselves, have acquired a rather bad reputation in the real world, so much so that you can hardly ever find someone willing to defend such things. I have never seen anyone offer a coherent explanation of why it is acceptable to treat people this way on Wikipedia; invariably they fall into the "this is not a justice system" argument, in which case they implicitly admit that they accept injustices. Everyking (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@ArbCom: Maybe I'm the only one on Wikipedia, and maybe I'm just sucking up, but I, personally, have no problem with either your actions or your announcement. We elected you to do this stuff, and to protect the encyclopedia so the rest of us can continue to edit it, and I, for one (maybe the only one), appreciate that you are beating the bounds and taking action when necessary. BMK (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really trying to be provocative, but secrecy always breeds suspicion. I have no solution to the issue. But BMK, your comment reads like a version of First they came.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanRiley (talk • contribs) 22:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You are most definitely not the only one, @Beyond My Ken:, most editors feel the same way. It's just the same people who make the most noise doing what they always do. Try to subvert and make innuendos of improper actions where they can. The voters spoke loudly in the most recent election. Some don't like the results, most do. Keep up the good work. Dave Dial (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Dave Dial (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Everyking: The thing about harassment, though, is that it often involves publishing or harping on embarrassing or overly-personal facts/claims/rumours about the victim. Forcing Arbcom to publish evidence of that type of harassment onwiki means that in the course of "protecting" harassment victims, we have to harass them even more publicly with information that has been published specifically to hurt/threaten them. So for instance (from here on I'm going to use an example that is half-made up and half- a composite of things that have happened to me in the past. It's not something I'm saying either of the "harassment-banned" users we're discussing on this page did. I encourage people to read it anyway, to get a sense of the seriously private/damaging types of evidence that Arbcom might have to publicly present in harassment-ban cases if they were required to do so).

A fictional case of harassment, to provide an example

Say someone is angry I blocked them. They think I'm just awful and that I need to be punished. So while they're waiting for that block time to expire, they spend their time building a "Wikipedia user Fluffernutter" article on, say, RationalWiki. In that page, they list my name, my address, and my phone number; they describe my children and the local school they attend, using information they pulled out of Facebook's privacy holes; they write sections alleging that I'm sleeping with everyone from the janitor to Jimbo; then for good measure, they throw in a paragraph about how since I work for [employer], I must be a corporate espionage agent sent by [employer] to use my administrative powers on Wikipedia to benefit them. Then they go to reddit, slashdot, etc and advertise their new RationalWiki page there, using an account that can be clearly linked to their Wikipedia one. Now say that when I become aware of that page, I'm both alarmed and frightened (as many women on the internet would be, upon discovering their family's personal info published). I email Arbcom a link to the page, saying "This person is blocked from Wikipedia, but they are running around social media publishing these things about me, and their block is going to expire in three days and I don't know what to do to make this stop." Arbcom reviews the evidence and decides that yes, this person's campaign of harassment has crossed the lined, and they are not welcome on Wikipedia as long as they're doing things like this. They ban the user.

Ok, so Arbcom has banned my hypothetical harasser. How are they to describe the reason for their ban when it is announced on the Arbcom Noticeboard?

• They could say "For posting personal information about user:Fluffernutter on RationalWiki, user:Whoever is banned." But now everyone knows where to look to find my personal details, and probably a number of the people who read that announcement, just out of innocent curiosity, have gone to RW and searched "Fluffernutter".
• Ok, how about "For harassment of user:Fluffernutter, user:Whoever is banned"? Well, now onlookers are going to be digging into any and all history Whoever and I share, attempting to find and evaluating evidence on-wiki or across the internet that involves Whoever and me, and which may or may not have anything to do with the actual reason Whoever was banned.
• How about "For harassment conducted on RationalWiki, user:Whoever is banned"? If Whoever's wp username can be linked to their RW one (and presumably it can be in some way, since Arbcom found it the two accounts to be linkable enough to base sanctions on), then curious readers will shortly be off to Whoever's RW account, where they will find that their main contributions involve writing about my address and purported sexual history.
• So ok, Arbcom is going to be cautious and not provide any detail that could lead to people coming after me, the victim. They announce that "User:Whoever is banned based on private evidence." All hell breaks loose on the noticeboard, because Arbcom can't just ban people and not provide an explanation!
• So they retrench and add "...banned based on evidence of harassment," thinking they've hit a happy - or at least, least-bad - medium. But now they've got people yelling at them for not providing enough explanation and people yelling at them for libeling user:Whoever by mentioning the word "harassment" in connection with them.

There's literally no way, at least that I can think of, that Arbcom could announce/describe a ban for off-wiki harassment that isn't going to suffer from either over-detail (likely resulting in the re-victimization of the harassment victim) or under-detail (causing outcry about secret decisions and un-reviewable evidence).

My personal feeling, as someone who has been harassed in the past and thus may be biased about this, is that the proper way for Arbcom to err in a situation like that is by providing fewer public details, so as to protect the victim who has already suffered ban-worthy amounts of harassment. If onlookers - or the target of the ban - find the situation questionable enough when the less-detailed announcement is published, they can ask Jimbo, or Arbcom themselves, to review the propriety of the decision. They could get input from the Ombudsman Commission if the Checkuser tool was involved, or from the Meta community if there's evidence (beyond "they won't publicly post what user:Whoever said about Fluffernutter") that Arbcom and Jimbo are colluding to obstruct natural justice on enwp. They could go all the way up to the WMF if they feel Arbcom's decision is breaking the ToU in some serious way (paid COI, discrimination, whatever). There is an entire series of appeal/review bodies to whom Arbcom would presumably provide the evidence on which they based their decision, if the decision is challenged to that body. Tl;dr: "We cannot show you the evidence publicly, because of concerns about re-victimizing the victim" isn't, and shouldn't be assumed to be, the same as "there is no evidence" or "we will not allow bodies who are qualified to handle personally identifiable information to review our work if it is called into question." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"For off wiki harassment, editor User:who is banned is indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. The committee regrets that, due to Foundation privacy policy, it is unable to provide any further explanation." NE Ent 23:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That would imply the Committee wanted to disclose information on-wiki which would cause harassment to the victim, and does not do so only because of an external diktat. BethNaught (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

How about:

"For publishing the private information concerning another editor on a non-wikimedia website, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) is banned from the English Wikipedia."

That (1) doesn't name the victim (Fluffernutter), (2) doesn't say where to find the information (RationalWiki), and (3) states the reason for the hypothetical ban. In fact, that type of description is very close the public crime reports my college emails to all of us students. For example:

"Last night, a <description of perpetrator> assaulted a student and took property. Cincinnati police have arrested the individual."

Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That could work in at least some cases, and is as good a suggestion as I've seen for how to improve the announcements. My concerns with that style would be a) in cases where even saying that much would make it the victim/venue obvious ("We know user:Whoever is big on RationalWiki, let's go see what he's edited there lately"/"Well, user:Whoever has been fighting with user:OtherGuy lately, so clearly OtherGuy was the victim and reported Whoever"), and b) in cases where there's no single, simple description - though many cases can be easily understood as harassment within a few-words description, not all harassment can be easily summed up that way (to make a simple one up, "for repeatedly emailing an administrator" would bring about more questions than it answers; or imagine how you'd try to describe really weird, long, or involved situations without giving either too little or too much information). And I would worry that if Arbcom began a precedent of giving that type of semi-explanation, it would draw more attention to whatever happened in cases where they still can't/won't give that type of explanation. I'd be interested in hearing some arbs' takes on whether this type of announcement could work, though; it's definitely worth considering. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal and Fluffernutter: My first reaction to this idea is that "<description of perpetrator>" in real life is often not as neutral or anonymized as the description-writers believe, particularly if the perpetrator is a minority. This has been an occasional news item recently in the US, e.g. among college campus police departments (Example). That's not an exact parallel, obviously, but the fact is that you can't un-publish such descriptions and it may be difficult to know in advance what is "too much". In Reaper's example, just saying that private information was posted by User:Whoever is at least enough to say "hey, there's good dirt out there somewhere!" and everyone will look in all the usual places you might find Wikipedia-related dirt.

I'm certainly sympathetic to the problem, having spent all last week sitting on my hands not posting an argument conceptually identical to Reaper's about the WMF Board thing. But I don't see a lot of good solutions. Some of the wording changes that have been proposed in this thread and the one above have potential, and we can certainly look into changing how we announce these things if the community finds it useful. But to be honest, my personal prediction is that such changes won't make much difference. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, this is latching onto irrelevant minutia. My example isn't an end-all be-all perfect solution—it's an example. ArbCom will obviously not provide a physical description of the user, since all we care about is the username of the banned individual, not their gender, skin color, clothing, and anything else that could be used to help identify and arrest a perpetrator. I would be much happier if people would focus more on the salient point and not on the irrelevant details. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The salient point is that these sorts of seemingly neutral and anonymized descriptions are actually rather difficult to write, and that getting it wrong can have unforeseen negative consequences. I haven't thought of one yet for Fluffernutter's example case that wouldn't leave a breadcrumb trail to the hypothetical private information. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not asking for a description of the perpetrator. We have the username, which would have just been banned. All I'm asking for is a statement of what was done. I am not asking for the exact location of the harassment. I am not asking for the personal information of the victim. I am not asking for the username of the victim. It's not hard to say "banned for posting personal information of another editor on another website" in place of "banned for harassment". It's not hard to say "banned for calling people's employers to get them fired" instead of "banned for harassment".

This repeated evasion of the questions being asked and the requests made is making me wonder if a reasonable man might not consider the events "harassment". When nobody can tell why seemingly random bans are taking place, it creates unease. As Everyking mentions below, mentioning what the banned user actually did would prevent these issues of what appear to be forced disappearances. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't want to perpetuate harassment, but I see little reason to think that merely providing an explanation for a ban would perpetuate harassment. On the contrary, it seems to me that a reasonably explained ban sends a strong message against harassment, while an unexplained ban just creates uncertainty and resentment. An explanation can be given without disclosing anyone's personal information, and if people were really that interested they would surely find it regardless. We cannot possibly say we have fair process if we won't even explain our decisions and give accused users a chance to defend themselves. Everyking (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

But my point is that I'm asking what form this "explanation for the ban" in a harassment case could take (beyond "banned for off-wiki harassment", which is what they have been doing) that would not involve information that would potentially perpetuate the harassment? "Harassment on [Twitter|IRC|Facebook|venue]" won't work, because you'd be telling people where to look to find "the dirt." "[Doxxing|sexual harassment|harassing phone calls|method]" won't work, because that increases the chances that Arbcom, a non-legal body, is making a legally actionable statement about a user, and they'd presumably like to remain un-sued. "Harassment against [this person|that person|the other person]" won't work because you're outing the victim and directing attention at them. "Harassment, proven by [chat logs|social media screenshots|phone records|other physical evidence]" could work, in some cases, possibly, but I don't really think knowing that the evidence came on a paper printout vs. via screenshot vs. whatever will actually resolve the concerns people are expressing here about harassment evidence being improperly interpreted. Similarly, "...banned for harassment, and we can't say more because privacy policy", as suggested by NE Ent above, is neither entirely accurate (I doubt it's the privacy policy that holds them back so much as it is a simple sense of "we're not going to direct more attention at someone who's already suffering from having inappropriate attention on them") nor any more informative for the purposes of allowing the community review the decision Arbcom made. The only thing that would resolve complaints about secret, unreviewable evidence would be an actual description of the specific, harassing things the person said, or actually publishing the log/screenshot/what-have-you, at which point we're back to square one as far as perpetuating the harassment. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No, "banned for off-wiki harassment", is not what they are doing: the announcement makes no mention of "off-wiki." And I said "off wiki harassment, "not off wiki harassment." Furthermore, the implication that saying you're following website owner's terms of service means you would take a different action is if it wasn't the owner's terms of service doesn't follow logically. Personally, I follow the terms of service because that's how a I roll -- I don't even bother thinking about what I would do if they weren't the terms of service because it's a moot point. NE Ent 02:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the more likely reason this is secret is because our new social justice Arbs are calling something harassment which normal people would not consider harassment. How many more wrongthink bans shall we expect? I'm disgusted that some of these power hungry bullies were "voted" in. 70.56.27.239 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Presumably you were one of those voters using your regular account, as opposed to the IPs you're now using while logged out -- or perhaps your account(s) are indef blocked or banned? BMK (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps some arbs were "elected" because the extreme SJWs wikipedia was too stupid to throw out had finally collected enough sockpuppet accounts to ensure some people would be arbitrators who neither had the intellect or temperament for it. It is fun to "speculate." 70.56.27.239 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Whine, whine, whine. If you don't have an account, then you had no say in who was elected. If you do have an account, log in so we know who's being a big baby. clpo13_(talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, pointing out this is a corrupt system is "whining." I'm just laughing as this entire project is being destroyed and nobody is smart enough to stop it. "Secret evidence" my ass. I know what the so-called evidence is. It isn't hard to find and it certainly isn't anything to be banned over. 70.56.27.239 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Provide citation and get banned. I'm well aware of how your ilk work. 70.56.27.239 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So a host of Arbitrators known to and elected by the community working within community-created structures and policies say there is secret evidence of private harassment, and the community should discount that in favor of vague claims of unknown public evidence by an IP editor who refuses to substantiate their claims. Sure, that seems reasonable. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

An individual continuing to engage in a pointless exchange should be wary of using the term "reasonable." (See also Wikipedia:The_Last_Word). NE Ent 22:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but it may be worth pointing out that the banning vote was unanimous, with the two abstainers being (ISTM) precisely those members most associated with the gender-gap issue (viz the so-called SJWs), so I don’t find the accusation at all credible. Moreover I would have expected rather different election results if there really had been a conspiracy to pack the committee with activists.—Odysseus1479 23:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Who are you playing coy for exactly? We both know any evidence presented would result in an immediate ban and revdel. Too bad we can't see who voted for who in the elections isn't it? Might be interesting to see the number of obvious anti-Gamergate sockpuppets that you protected who voted for you. On an unrelated note, how is PetertheFourth doing these days? I've been following him since his very first edits on the evidence page of the Gamergate arbitration case ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/PeterTheFourth&dir=prev&target=PeterTheFourth ) - just where someone would expect a new user to show up! lmao 70.56.27.239 (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmmm. What exactly does @PetertheFourth: have to do with anything? And wasn't the editor who was always complaining about PetertheFourth as an SPA banned, or topic banned, a few months ago? Do we have a WP:DUCK here? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It is rather ridiculous to criticize the anon for not providing evidence when the ArbCom has said that disclosing it would perpetuate harassment, so I think you owe the anon an apology, Gamaliel. Everyking (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I found the former ArbComm member's post earlier quite insightful. We elect ArbComm to do their job, so let them do it. Why do some editors feel the need to defend bad apples that make this less fun for the rest of us? Legacypac (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No one has been shown to be a bad apple. If you mean to apply that to The Devil's Advocate, I disagree. --doncram 23:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, this is punitive PERIOD. You cannot say otherwise, they user has not edited since october. This is 100% punitive and I would move towards lifting the ban and removing tools from anyone involved. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If you'll read through the (substantial) discussion above, you'll see that the block was related to harassment off-wiki. clpo13_(talk) 00:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, the user has not posted since october. It's impossible for it to be preventative. Anything off-wiki doesn't in any way hold ANY sway. You can't argue that it does. Oh and FFS I forgot to login. FlossumPossum out yo. 65.29.77.61 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

And that's being discussed above in length. Obviously, it's not clear-cut. clpo13_(talk) 00:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There's not much discussion to be had on the topic. It's pretty clear-cut. Actions against users are preventative, this is not preventative. This does nothing but make random arbcom member go 'OOOOooooOOoooo I got that bitch, GOTCHA BABY, HAHAHAHAHA'. There's nothing positive to be gained from banning someone who already doesn't edit Wikipedia. This is someone with an axe to grind, not a preventative measure. FlossumPossum (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you're making a big deal of this I hope you've checked the history and are aware one of the reasons TDA hasn't edit for nearly 3 months is because they were blocked and even lost talk page access. They would have been allowed back on the 5th January were it not for this new ban. This new ban makes it far more difficult for TDA to bring any of that harassment on wiki. I.E. Preventative. It also ensures that whoever was harassed doesn't have to deal with TDA who may have legitimately come back on the 5th were it not for the new ban (regardless of whether the harassment was brought here). I.E. Preventative although as someone pointed out below, both preventative and punitive are very similar in that scenario. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's safe to infer from the above posts by logged-out users that this matter was posted on r/WikiInAction or one of the other GamerGate haunts a bit earlier. To offer a bit of outside perspective on related issues, I'm a semi-regular editor at RationalWiki. Just within the past month, we have had to ban several users for engaging in off-site harassment related to GamerGate, including congregating on other websites to ferret out users' personal information and planning to make phone calls to people's neighbors alleging that <editor> was a supporter of pedophilia. This is particularly jarring if you know how lenient RationalWiki tends to be regarding banning. (To add additional context, people who identify with GamerGate have long complained about our article on the topic not being "fair" to them.) So it's not terribly unusual to have harassment involving the topic. But remember, it's really about ethics in video game journalism. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

How is this now about GamerGate? 67.44.193.226 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So now ArbCom has done a couple quick bans on the basis of harassment where we're just supposed to take their word. IRC and email harassment is particularly laughable. Oh, it's private, except that it's not and its a joke to pretend it's so. It's a fucking game and it's silly. We're supposed to pretend that all the backdoor conversations and collusion don't happen. We're supposed to pretend that you're our protectors of privacy. At what point are you going to realize nobody is going to buy that? At what point are you going to realize you're volunteers and throwing around legal terms like harassment with no disclosure is going to bite you very hard in the ass? Or do you expect that paragon of community support that is the WMF to have your back? Capeo (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the above turned into a Gamer Gate argument. I could give two fucks about that stuff. Aside from the fact where, and it isn't even if with that crew, that any and all discretions should be dealt with openly. Capeo (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• There is no way in which we are going to make public the details of harassment. That you'll have to take our word for it, that's the name of the game. If you had been harassed by a Wikipedia editor, in some vile way, would you want it publicized on some noticeboard? And what if it contained your real name, and the school your children attend? Your talk about "supposing to pretend" isn't very meaningful: you know we do things "in secret", though it's not really that secret--it's a somewhat select group of people, sure, but people like me were voted in by people like you, and you're not "supposed to pretend" we're protecting your privacy: we are, in fact, protecting people's privacy including sometimes, as a possibly unfortunate side effect, the privacy of the offender. You are more than welcome to run for the next ArbCom and maybe you'll feel like I did when I first saw some of the emails we get: it's something along the lines of "holy shit I'm glad not everyone has to read this", followed quickly by "what did I sign up for?" Drmies (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There is an on-going criminal trial in Canada whether continously disagreeing with someone on Twitter constitutes harassment: Guthrie vs. Elliott (National Post article). Yep. I hope the ArbCom is a bit more restrictive in their definition, and since they have taken the off-wiki duty they can deal with the hazards (tieing accounts/nicks together, context, trying to get a fair view instead of a one-sided private report). --Pudeo' 04:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting and worrying case. Capeo if the lawsuit passes we may have to rethink our harassment policy, but your comments seem to suggest we need to do that now, perhaps even avoid using the word. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, the issue is this, you're all a bunch of volunteers dealing with private info that ends up never staying private anyway due to the nature of WP and the internet in general. I would think it's best to refrain from terminology that has a direct legal corollary when you can simply say "conduct that is detrimental to the editing environment on WP" or other such wording. As a private website you don't even need to give an excuse but when you give one that has real world legal implications you're opening the door for trouble someday I'd think. Capeo (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a general comment: previous arbcoms got flak for not being proactive enough regarding harassment. This is a more proactive stance. I didn't vote on either of the above because I didn't have time to review the relevant evidence. On one hand we expect arbcom to ban individuals for non-illegal harassment (Although really really bad and immoral, I don't recall witnessing harassment which is currently illegal, although there is some movement to make more of this sort of behavior illegal. There is a difference between trying to disparage somebody online with the intent to make them unemployable, and simply being a massive jerk to someone without provocation. I've never seen the first, and I've seen infinitely more of the second than makes any sense. Now it's a tough call, how far can we, and should we go, especially in cases where the connection is unclear. (I do not think it was here). When arbcom knows, how aggressive should they be? How germane is IRC harassment? Email harassment? Harassment in person with a knife to a non wikipedian? None of this is straightforward, it's not codified, and arbcom is acting as best as it can. They are attempting to balance the interests of those harassed with punitive/preventative (largely the same thing...) actions taken against the perpetrators. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbcoms get flak. Period. This is a minimization problem -- criticism can only be minimized, not prevented. Per the above discussion, the best a committee can do is say "off-wiki," state clearly and firmly it is unable to discuss it on wiki, stop posting the stupid bureaucratic "discuss this" links, and then politely ignore the folks who want to discuss it on wiki. NE Ent 13:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As far how far a committee should go -- the most important thing must be the solidity of the evidence connecting the wiki account with the off-wiki behavior -- anyone can create "NE Ent" accounts on other forums, so the same name(s) obviously shouldn't be sufficient to sanction an editor. (This is a general observation; I have no knowledge of or reason to doubt the committee's actions on the specific cases currently being discussed.) NE Ent 13:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Let the Political purges commence. You don't need to know why a wrongthinker has been purged, asking for an explanation is akin to heresy. The party and "elected officials" know best. Move along citizen, there is nothing to see here. 79.247.123.26 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Help, now I'm being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

By your actions in this matter you show yourself to be an enemy of transparency and an obstacle to true democracy. We only protect free speech when we protect the speech which disturbs or disgusts us. This committee shows that it values silencing dissenters higher than adherence to principles of freedom and liberty for all. 50.45.233.119 23:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This just in: no free speech at privately-owned website. More at 11. clpo13_(talk) 23:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That is certainly the "standard retort" given by those supporting the prohibition of undesirable speech. Obviously the matter is more nuanced than that. Wikimedia frequently touts the benefits of free speech and liberal values in its press statements and fundraising drives as a part of the Wikipedia ethos. On a more general note, people who argue that the First Amendment has no bearing on non-governmental actors are technically correct (obviously), but they miss the point - the ideals embodied in the First Amendment's free speech clause are cherished by the people generally, and thus private businesses have always been influenced by these ideals. 50.45.233.119 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course the matter is more nuanced. You're upset that any speech is censored (by banning a user) but for a website to function in any way, it needs to have some limits on speech, which is why the "what about our free speech?!" argument doesn't work. It's not a black and white, "Murica the free" versus "literally Stalin" matter like you make it out to be. clpo13_(talk) 00:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Free information, such as Wikipedia tries to disperse, is conducive to free speech. The rest, all this Stalin stuff, is just hot air, or, to put it another way, hot air. Need proof? You're still not blocked! Drmies (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on Narcissa Wright are pretty indicative of where you stand, and they certainly indicate to which extent we should take you seriously. You weren't exercising free speech there--you were using harassing speech to push a POV, as your denial of someone's being transgendered indicates. Have a nice day. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A rather thinly veiled threat. Juan Riley (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was endorsing free speech? Drmies (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I think it is quite shocking for a sitting arbitrator to trawl through the edit history of someone who disagreed with him in order to find ammunition to launch personal attacks. You may not understand the nature of free speech. When you say I was not "exercising free speech" when I said things you didn't like ... that's the whole point. I am also of the opinion that Gamaliel is in a questionable position. I note on his talk page he claims to have worked in a library. Any true librarian would understand the position of the ALA on censorship and banning certain viewpoints. You have a pleasant day as well :-) 50.45.233.119 03:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the American Library Association, of which I am a member, states that prohibiting harassment is perfectly compatible with their commitment to free expression. For example, see http://alamw14.ala.org/statement-of-appropriate-conduct. Do your homework before you trawl through the edit history of others in order to find ammunition to launch personal attacks. Gamaliel (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Trawling through? The edits in question still show up in the first page of your edit history, and are pretty much the only edits to the encyclopaedia proper and told us what you were doing in the edit summaries (which is a good thing, except the edits were very bad). Checking the contrib of problematic editors is perfectly reasonable, it's not that uncommon you'll find some junk that needs to be dealt with. If you don't want people to dismiss you because of you're appalling behaviour, don't behave so badly. Not that it was really necessary, your comments here were dumb enough to be unworthy of any real attention. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL. The ALA delineated what it considered harassment. The Lightbreather case where the head of a person was artistically rendered with Photoshop onto porn actresses would not be ALA harassment. Sorry, but just saying they are against harassment isn't anywhere close to what normal people consider harassment. The ALA is notoriously tolerant of activity they consider "expression" regardless of the impact it has on other people. The ALA's own statement seems to say that as long as you don't yell at them, it's okay (libraries are quiet so their specific prohibition on yelling is understandable). I guess that means if TDA didn't USE ALL CAPS IN HIS CORRESPONDENCE, he's just fine as far as ALA is concerned. --DHeyward (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, the link provided above says that "Sexual harassment or intimidation, including unwelcome sexual attention, stalking (physical or virtual), or unsolicited physical contact" are strictly prohibited. Photoshopping a person's head onto a naked model pretty clearly falls under this. But what does that have to do with this conversation? Mizike (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that a facetious remark from a present or near present arbcomm member will either be appreciated or suggest a promising future. Juan Riley (talk)

Yes, because all arbitrators must remain deadly serious at all times, especially in the face of such preposterous remarks. BethNaught (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Acontributor to an online encyclopaedia has been asked to find a new hobby. The IP (among others) equates this to systematic mass murder by one of the modern era's most violent and oppressive regimes. With respect, I agree with Drmies that it is hard to take the IP's view very seriously. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Juan, I have it on good but secret authority that my comment was in fact appreciated, and I thank you for your concern with my future. Seacrest out. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Banning someone for harassment is certainly not murder, but it isn't just "asking them to find a new hobby", either. The way we treat our contributors actually is important and we shouldn't trivialize it. Everyking (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new facetious overlords. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Gamaliel since as Mies said, your secret authority to continue to make fun of some of the users' concerns is appreciated, why don't you now wander about awarding further facetious awards such as Stalinist Cabal Barnstar's.Juan Riley (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

When I typed the above I had given up impatiently waiting for an "official" response to "Acontributor to an online encyclopaedia has been asked to find a new hobby. etc..." Apparently that is the answer. We should find new hobbies? Juan Riley (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just as an addendum: about 45 minutes after the above two posts of mine User:Drmies reverted the last page edit I had made at that time. Perhaps with good merit and perhaps 'tis a coincidence. You judge. I have been told to find a new hobby. :) Juan Riley (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that is an incorrect reading of the comment. There is widespread interest in the role of Wikipedia dispute resolution in responding to issues that relate to Wikipedia but occur off-site. However the debate will be better informed and more useful if people can refrain from ridiculous hyperbole, like equating one person's removal from an online encyclopedia with the slaughter of millions of people in death camps. You, JuanRiley, have not been asked to find another hobby. The Devil's Advocate has, at least for the next few months before they lodge an appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you...you have not after me yet. That is good to know. Juan Riley (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/04/wikipedia-can-now-ban-you-for-what-you-do-on-other-websites/ Prevalence (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Article is incorrect. This website has previously banned editors for activities done offsite since at least 2006....see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. The article fails to mention that TDA is also banned from Wikipediocracy as well.--MONGO 08:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I read on wikipediocracy that editors who contacted Kumioko's (Reguyla) employer, trying to get him fired, were not banned from wikipedia. Is that true, and does it imply that The Devil's Advocate did something worse? Prevalence (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You ought not believe everything you read on Wikipediocracy. No one was trying to get Kumioko fired, and no one actually contacted his employer, whatever Kumioko might say to the contrary. Either way that's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not much relevant we can say about the topic at hand, is there? An editor is banned based on unknown accusations/evidence by an unknown accuser. No info given to prevent "re-victimization of the harassment victim". Oh please, if that was the main concern the logical choice would have been : no ban -> no announcement of the ban -> no discussion of the ban -> no speculation about the reasons for the ban. After all, a ban on WP doesn't prevent off-wiki actions, does it? Unless ArbCom has done some harassing of its own, they probably have enough info to do so. In that case the ban and the justification given makes perfect sense; it would also explain why ArbCom seems so confident that the banned user won't reveal the information either, given that keeping the info secret seems to be their main concern. Prevalence (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that one shouldn't take action against harassers because doing so draws attention to their harassment is a rather poor one, if you actually want the harassment to stop, and actively enables further harassment in the future. Whether or not a ban on Wikipedia causes the user to stop on other sites, the community, ArbCom, and the WMF have every right to decide to revoke someone's privilege of editing. As for ArbCom harassing TDA, you posit an unlikely though I suppose structurally sound theory, but the simpler solution is that there's no way TDA could contest the evidence presented—either clearly made by him on another site, or via email. The fact that he's been banned from the most obvious public forum for any sort of response also might have something to do with (as far as I know TDA has no declared or public social media accounts.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is not whether the ArbCom has "the right" to ban people (also known as "revoking someone's privilege of editing"), it's whether it is right to do in individual instances. I don't think people are very interested in hearing an assertion of the ArbCom's rights and privileges. I think some semblance of evidence accompanied by an actual argument would be much more welcome. When someone complains that people are being dragged away in the middle of the night, the appropriate response is surely not "we have the right to drag people away in the middle of the night". Everyking (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As me and other have said above, a ban doesn't prevent off-wiki actions but it may discourage it since amongst other things, the editor may now have less reason to care. Of course it may encourage, we ultimately have no way to know how an editor will respond, still it's better to tell editor who harass others they are unwelcome. More importantly perhaps, and as also said before, removing the editor also ensures that whoever they are harassing doesn't have to deal with the person harassing them. Presuming the editor they are harassing doesn't know, it at least helps avoiding the editor having to find out they've been forced to collobrate with their harasser one day. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that someone did contact Kumioko's employer, and that an almost psychopathic glee was expressed by several people who should know better at the prospect of such communication causing severe hardship to a well intentioned person. The extent of Kumioko's bad behaviour was very limited, and largely a response to the uncivil and combative handling of his complaints. The stupidity of engaging an ex-Marine in conflict rather than using a more civilized approach brought its own reward. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC).

Hmm if there's little doubt I presume you mean there's independent evidence someone did contact Kumiko's employer? Could you link to it? All I could find were claims from Kumioko which of course many of us are reluctant to trust. Along with counterclaims from people who say they believe the allegation was false. Anyway, can't say I agree Kumioko's bad behaviour was limited. And if Kumioko is an example of how a typical US marine responds to conflict, no wonder the US has such major problems with their military and in dealing with military conflict. (I take it you understand Navy Seal Copypasta isn't intended to be taken seriously?) While I'm not saying all responses to Kumioko were appropriate, perhaps the problem was the opposite, people assumed because Kumioko was a former marine, they would behave far better than they did and weren't so worried about treating Kumioko with kid's gloves like they would say a typical stroppy underage editor or the other typical problematic editors we get. Lest they go off the deep end because they can't handle conflict or disagreements and perhaps the occassional poor response in a mature manner which will actual achieve something useful. And then hang around like a bad smell even when it's clear they aren't wanted and aren't achieving anything productive by hanging around. All of which seemed to be what happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated to this announcement

As the Arbitration committee has broken it's remit it must be disbanded and all of it's decisions reviewed for breaking the rules of Wikipedia. 213.165.159.18 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC) I repeat when is WMF going to get involved and remove Arbitrators who are abusing their privileges and acting outside their legitimate remit? If DGG, Courcelles, Guerillero, Keilana, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Kirill Lokshin are incompetent then they should be removed and their actions reviewed for abuse of their privileges. 213.165.159.18 (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC) This will not happen until you or someone else presents evidence that the accusations you make are true. I would strongly recommend both reading WP:ASPERSIONS and logging in with your main account (unless of course you are evading a block or ban?) before commenting further. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Jesus kicking Christ, this is stupid, all of it. What are the chances of Gamergate and anything related to its gangrenous, drama-laden timesuck of a topic area getting the Brian Peppers treatment so the SJWs, "ethics in vidya games jurnalizm" advocates, 4chan doxxer drivel and MRAs alike can find some other internet drama that won't matter in a few years (certainly not to anyone outside of first-world countries) to whine, bitch, dox and slapfight about?

Break due to lack of recent discussion

So, in the "light" of the wall of text above, is there any likelihood of ArbCom changing its methods and/or transparency at all, or is the plan to continue as things have gone with the previous two bans?

As a second question, is the present ArbCom planning on taking a tougher stance on harassment of any nature than previous Arbitration Committees? If so, will we get an official statement as to what ArbCom plans on doing (banning, desysopping, etc) for what?

I'm not saying that being harsh on harassment is a bad thing—far from it! I'm only worried because the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We have changed the way we will announce such sanctions. We are willing to explore ways to address concerns regarding transparency, but are not willing to do so while sacrificing the privacy of victims of harassment. While I sympathize with many of the concerns voiced here, I do not believe any of the proposed solutions sufficiently protects that privacy.

I doubt the entire Committee could agree on a statement about how exactly we will act in hypothetical cases of harassment, but we can certainly discuss the idea.

I think the perception that we have so far acted incredibly differently from the 2015 ArbCom is inaccurate. Soap was banned by the 2015 ArbCom and the only reason that TDA was banned by the 2016 ArbCom is that the previous ArbCom didn't finish voting in time for the changeover. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What Gamaliel said. Let me add that harassment comes in many flavors and typically a charge of harassment requires extensive discussion. While it may seem that ArbCom's explanations have a boilerplate quality to them, this may mask great differences in the kinds of harassment that can be perpetrated. But since privacy trumps transparency we are very limited in what we can say. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

According to The Devil's Advocate he wasn't shown the evidence or even informed of the specific charge or who it involved. Is that correct? 107.107.58.245 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Could the ArbCom please respond to the IP's question? This seems like an important thing to address. Everyking (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Privacy trumps transparency, unfortunately. I believe the community believes this too: if not, the community would have done away with the whole idea of "ArbCom". Explicating evidence in the case of harassment (I'm speaking generally here) can, in principle, provide more fodder for more harassment. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, Drmies, I think I might have misunderstood your above comment. Do you mean to say that privacy demands that a person ostensibly banned for harassment need not ever be informed about whom they are supposed to have harassed nor how? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am speaking generally. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, again, but I seem to be especially slow on the uptake today. Speaking generally, is the answer to my above question "yes"? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you're fine--it's just that I don't want to answer leading questions, and I am not inclined to tweak your question to the point where I do feel inclined to answer it. :) Drmies (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly not my intent to be leading, and I don't mean to create any kind of "gotcha." I think it is legitimate to ask whether a person sanctioned by ArbCom, for harassment or anything else, can expect to have notice of the accusations, the evidence supporting them, and the opportunity to respond to them. These are, I feel, essential elements of any adjudicative process, and this is a separate matter from whether any of this is made public. It appears from the above responses that there will be no answer from ArbCom about whether these elements were present in TDA's case, but I think community members are entitled to know whether they can expect to have these minimal procedural safeguards should they be accused of harassment or other wrongdoing. Honestly, Drmies, I'm not trying to trip you up, here. I think it's a reasonable question to ask. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a legal proceeding. There are not plaintiffs and defendants. We do not take statements from victims or harassers. We do not ask the victim what kind of sanction they would prefer. We look at the evidence, that's all. I understand the natural impulse to want people to be able to answer their accusers, but these are not garden variety cases like you see at ANI, where we decide if someone's relatively innocuous statement violated a topic ban or if calling someone a "buttclown" is a personal attack worthy of sanction or not. We deal with threats of outing, where someone's identity and privacy, and perhaps employment or personal safety, are at risk, or threats of legal action, or threats of serious violence, and things of that nature. And we do not reveal details regarding the identify of victims of this kind of harassment, period. That opens up victims to retaliatory harassment and discourages victims from reporting harassment. What possible purpose would it serve to let harassers know which of their victims complained to the Committee? What do you expect us to do? "Dear Mr. Harasser, you emailed User:Randy using the Wikipedia email service and threatened to split open his head with a rusty hatchet. Do you have a response to this accusation? Would you care to argue how this doesn't violate Wikipedia policy and basic human decency?" Or perhaps we should do all this publicly, where the harasser gets to revel in a prominent discussion of the pros and cons of threatening to kill Randy with a hatchet and how Randy may or may not deserve such a fate under Wikipedia policy.

We need as much transparency and accountability as we can. But we also need to protect victims and not let proceedings become a prominent stage for harassers to act out, get attention, and further victimize other editors. I understand that this is frustrating to a community which rightfully treasures openness and transparency, but please consider those victims. We should inform the community as much as we can while also protecting individual members of this community, and if you were one of those victims, you'd want us to do that for you too.

Note: Everything regarding Randy is a hypothetical and is purposely not intended to resemble any specific matter that has ever been before the Committee. Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a legal proceeding. I don't think anyone is under the delusion that it is. I (and others, I think) did however believe that arbitration was an adjudicative proceeding, involving reaching determinations about whether facts do or do not exist (e.g. that Mr. Harasser sent an email), whether those facts constitute violations of policy (e.g., that the email contents were harassment), and what penalty is appropriate for any violation. Adjudicative bodies throughout history have adopted certain procedural rules to ensure that they reached accurate and fair results in making these determinations. Among the most basic and indispensable of these are notice and opportunity to respond. I simply asked whether those were afforded here. After a few coy responses, it seems the answer is "no." Thank you for clarifying.

My view on how it ought to proceed is neither here nor there, but since you asked: yes, I think ArbCom should send the sort of email you described to Mr. Harrasser. I don't understand why that seems so absurd to you. It costs nothing, causes no harm, and has the potential to bring important information to light. Perhaps Mr. Harasser can show that his email was compromised, or that the message header shows it originating from a continent he's never visited. Perhaps Mr. Harasser can show that Randy fabricated the message, or that he wrote it in response to a message form Randy wherein Randy threatened to crush Mr. Harasser's skull with a mallet. If you don't ask, which again has virtually no cost to do, you wouldn't know. Certainly the committee need not buy any response Mr. Harasser offers, but giving him the opportunity to respond is the bare minimum that can be done to avoid arbitrariness of result. Read a book on dispute resolution-- I promise you will find this principle therein. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, is it true that his email access was shutdown by a recused arbcom member solely because he was sending email to a moderated list?? It seems it would be difficult to harass anyone through a moderated list unless the moderator was in on the harassment. --DHeyward (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is untrue. If by moderated list you are referring to ArbCom's mailing list, any user is free to email that list at any time if they wish to contact the Committee. Gamaliel (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Thank you for explaining the case of the hypothetical Randy; the explication, while tricky and tedious to compose, is far clearer and more convincing than simply repeating the traditional boilerplate phrases. Thanks, too, for emphasizing that these aren’t legal proceedings. It’s easy, with all the trappings of "clerks" and boilerplate, to forget that. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Gamaliel and Randy did a fine job, but Mark, isn't all this really obvious? If a student comes to me and says "student X has been harassing me in the hallway", I don't go to student X to say "hey, lay off this one particular student, you know, Randy, who was just telling me all about what you been doing?" Disclaimer: Wikipedia is not a school. No students are called Randy. "Student X" is a made-up name. No one ever said anything. Don't ask me I don't know any hallways. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

So we are now banning people without even telling them why. If you ban someone without even explaining what they are accused of doing (let alone what the evidence is), how in the world are they supposed to defend themselves? Everyking (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

They are not. That's the point. It's intentionally designed that way, because if they told TDA what he did, he would tell others, and obviously then the exact nature of the harassment would become known. The best way to keep a secret is to not tell anyone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being sincere or sarcastic, so I will just respond as if it's sincere. What if the accused didn't do what he was accused of doing, or what if there were mitigating factors, or what if the events weren't being understood properly? This is why people normally get to defend themselves, because sometimes accusations are wrong—and because people need to see that justice was done, or else it starts to look like people are being "disappeared" in the middle of the night, and this is a volunteer project and not a police state, so people will tend to respond to such a climate by leaving, or reducing their contribution... Surely I shouldn't have to explain this? Everyking (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sincere, but I don't think you got it. Arbcom do not want the nature of the harrassment known for their own interpretation of 'privacy'. The only way to prevent that is by not telling anyone. As a result this includes TDA. Since he is banned anyway and the community have no real method by which to contest it, it really doesn't matter from their point of view that they have not communicated with TDA. It is exactly like disappearing someone. Except he's still alive of course. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy

Private hearings

In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made.

So TDA was banned against policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.53.16 (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. Obviously there wasn't any "reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them"; in fact, he wasn't even told what was said about him, so responding to it would have been impossible. Everyking (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish to ask two questions:

• Could ArbCom confirm or deny the accusation by TDA as to whether he was given the chance to see the evidence and respond? Answering this violates no policy and causes no harm to anyone.
• Assuming the accusation is true, why was he not given this opportunity? Starke Hathaway has put the point succinctly. If TDA was indeed harassing person X, all you are doing is to show him things which he supposedly did himself. How exactly would it harm the victim? You are under no obligation to believe TDA's response. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Severe Violation of Committee Policy?

Restating what was cited above from the Policy which governs Arbitration Committee behavior:

In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made.

Can the Committee members confirm whether the community-ratified policy has been severely violated? 50.45.233.119 12:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ArbCom? Could you address this? This is really important. Everyking (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

What possible purpose would it serve to let harassers know which of their victims complained to the Committee? What do you expect us to do? "Dear Mr. Harasser, you emailed User:Randy using the Wikipedia email service and threatened to split open his head with a rusty hatchet. Do you have a response to this accusation? Would you care to argue how this doesn't violate Wikipedia policy and basic human decency?" @Gamaliel: How would they not already know and how would informing them of an accusation provide them any more information? Didn't Rolling Stone magazine teach anything? At least our policy appears rooted in the idea that responding to accusation is fundamentally fair (indeed some consider it a human right), even if ArbCom is now ignoring it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Buehler? Anyone? --DHeyward (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Uhh, bump, I guess. Arkon (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I, also, would like an answer to this question. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• I really don't have any strong opinions about all the various issues surrounding this ban, but I do think ArbCom should be accountable and transparent to the fullest extent reasonably possible. An editor has asked whether ArbCom has properly adhered to the policies (not guidelines, not essays) governing its operation, so in this case especially I do think it is quite important for them (in the interests of basic decency and accountability) to at least respond. So, in my position as an impartial editor and administrator (being an administrator, and therefore a servant and representative of the community, I feel the obligation to act in its best interests), I also kindly request that an arb respond to this inquiry. Perhaps it would help to ping the arbs: Callanecc, Casliber, Courcelles, DeltaQuad, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Salvio giuliano. Biblio (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm replying with my personal comment, not for the committee, and asking in general, *not* for this specific instance. If effective protection of user privacy in cases of harassment conflicts with arb com policy, what do you think the committee should do? My personal view is that the rule of Do No Harm to individuals is the guiding principle, and that in general the amount of harm done by being banned from WP is less the the harm that can be done by giving harassers information. This is different from the government's legal system, where the harm that can be done by putting someone in prison is greater than the harm likely to be done by harassment, and the government can offer a victim legal protection, which we cannot. In any one particular case, I am open to the possibility that my judgment of the relative harm may be wrong, or that the committee's collective judgment may be wrong. I think we do need an effective independent body to audit the committee or to hear appeals from it, but I emphasize that is my personal view only. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I speak individually here, and not on behalf of the committee. Was TDA notified of the proceeding? no. Was it reasonable to notify him in this case? No. It would have lead to further issues beyond the control of the Arbitration Committee. The Committee should consider ratifying the text to better reflect it's practices and I will look to post a motion in the next few days. As for any more requests for information about the committees reasoning for what I have just commented on, I decline to comment on the basis of the privacy policy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As was pointed out to me, I can't propose a motion on it. I would have to draft it and get the entire community on board with such a change first. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: I did not participate in this issue. ([2]) GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked the WMF about the privacy issue, which I see as overriding. The reply I got (yesterday) was "The victims' right to privacy is a cornerstone to our work." Telling TDA anything would almost certainly have been the same as identifying the victim. But I also don't think that the bit of policy being quoted applies here. The section being quoted is about forms of arbitration proceedings for requested cases. This didn't involve a case. This issue falls under our responsibility "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;". This isn't a precedent, we've taken similar actions in the past. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Er, the problem with that is, if no one knows that Arbcom is disregarding its own written policies because all discussion and decisions are being held in private, no one is going to object to it.

What you are saying is that you banned TDA without a)notifying him of what the accusation was, b)who it was against, c)gave him no option to explain or defend himself in advance. I will start by saying how unbelievably stupid it sounds right now quoting one part of a policy and willfully disregarding other parts. Its rampant sophistry. If you insist on operating under a burocratic policy-led process, you dont also get to disregard the bits you dont like because it would be inconvenient.

Even in the most heinous of criminal cases the accused is given enough information to defend themselves, even if the press and everyone else is kept in the dark. Otherwise there is no defense that can be offered. Right out of the military junta handbook that one. Or Guantanamo Bay. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And if this were an official court case we'd have access to all TDA's email, etc. But it isn't and we don't. And I repeat what I was told (verbatim) "The victims' right to privacy is a cornerstone to our work." I'm not willfully disregarding anything, I'm saying that you and others have misinterpreted it. Obviously you think I or we have. The end result of what you appear to want would be to prevent us from action in the case of some breaches of the harassment policy in order to avoid identifying the victim. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Telling TDA anything would almost certainly have been the same as identifying the victim." Wut...? Surely if someone is harassing a person, they know who they're harassing? You'd just be telling him something he already knows. Are you implying TDA was unknowingly harassing a person? How exactly does someone go about doing that? Also if it is unwitting harassment that wasn't done on purpose, surely conversing with TDA and explaining to him what's going on would have been the best explanation. Bosstopher2 (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be considered if the Arbitration Committee should be entirely disbanded

The conduct of arbitration committee and its members are continuously leading the project to controversy as it cannot stick to its rules and it has been abused as a racket.

It is incapable or unwilling to openly discuss its inappropriate decision making: and they are also unwilling to stick to basic ground rules when discussing the topic. For example; above, we have on the record above Drmies openly waving 'We cannot discuss this' whenever it is convenient to protect the committee, while we have Gamaliel making statements which are in clear violation of those rules.

According to the public statement of the editor who has been suspended; the Arbitration Committee couldn't even be bothered to roll out bed to let him know they were planning to expel him without due process.

Why should anyone believe his word over the Arbitration Committee? The Arbitration Committee has showed repeated incompetence in handling any matter related to the plethora of "GamerGate Controversy" cases over the past year and a half; including several of its members interjecting themselves to protect certain editors based on their political opinions regardless of how appalling their behavior has been. As an example, see the protection of Mark Bernstein by several committee member while he exploited his Wikipedia presence, as a resume, to run a series of paid university workshops based upon his presence here.

These frequent failures have notably jeopardized the neutrality of the project and the project has paid the price of losing support, genuinely useful editors and reputation.

If the Arbitration Committee is to survive and the project not be damaged by it's innevitable failure, there must be a material level of improvement in the conduct of the committee members, first, in terms of sticking to its own rules and second in the oversight of the behavior and activities which it and its members engage in. Being a member of the Arbitration committee must require a higher standard of transparency and good behavior than would be expect of a standard editor. Not the reverse which is currently the case.

I am left to conclude that the Arbitration Committee has became nothing more than the equivalent of a banana republic police force which allows some unsavory editors to be protected by its racket. Therefore I am left to conclude that it must be reformed or disbanded.

93.90.24.34 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) disbanded

Original announcement

Many thanks to those who worked on AUSC during it's time. –xeno^talk 18:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. As a former AUSC member (Class of '12), I commend this decision. It's been a long time coming. On a related note, the Ombudsman commission is expanding its scope to include Oversight. I assume most roles will be overtaken by this global commission at some point (a move of which I also approve). Keegan (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Was there a community discussion about this somewhere? I recall one for BASC, but not AUSC (I could easily have missed it though). I liked the idea of trying to have someone at least vaguely independent reviewing CU/OS complaints. I would like to hear from Joe Decker and MBisanz about their opinions on this decision. Jenks24 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It is my understanding that, like BASC, a previous arbcom just created AUSC on their own initiative. I don't know how the community could have even had a discussion about AUSC as everything it did was by definition completely off-wiki and protected by the privacy policy. I think this was the right move, AUSC didn't really do much of anything and never did as far as I know. I'd certainly be happy to see both of the recenty removed auditors become members of the functionaries team though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. I was happy to serve the community and look forward to continuing to serve in other roles. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC).

• My experience on the AUSC was that it was essentially toothless, which makes the bureaucracy pointless. Egregious violations of privacypolicy were still under the purview of the Committee, all the AUSC can do is make "recommendations" which are usually already apparent. Frankly, with the size and diversity of our Oversight and CheckUser teams, we do a fairly efficient job at policing and questioning each other's actions when needed. Most of my time on the AUSC was spent telling people that, despite their personal greviences, running a CheckUser is not against the privacy policy and a violation of WP:CHECKUSER (seriously, most complaints were "A check was run on me without my consent."). The AUSC was a silly role in light of our other paths to resolution. Keegan (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• @Jenks24: I think this was the right move, and am more or less in line with @Beeblebrox's and @Keegan's comments. (I have a small concern about this creating negative appearances of trouble, rather than actual trouble, going forward, but I don't believe that AUSC was optimized toward addressing those in any case, at worst this is still a step in the right direction.) --joe decker^talk 19:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I thought this had come out of the blue, but your responses indicate otherwise. And obviously it is hard for the general community to have a handle on this issue, considering most have never served on AUSC or had to make a request of them. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk)

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

  I am very pleased that the Arbitration Committee has taken the bull by the horns with respect to its subcommittees, and has put them out of their misery. They were important to create and were useful until the situation changed, and they made valuable contributions, but they were now well past their best-before dates. It takes courage to shut down processes that are no longer meeting their objectives, especially when they're volunteer-driven, but it is also (in my opinion) the wisest thing Arbcom has done in quite a while. Risker (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Auditing checkuser

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

--In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

See my sandbox Guerillero. What happens would be classed as reactive quality checks rather than auditing, as there doesn't appear to be any systematic auditing. I wouldn't say totally without oversight as there is peer review, but that appears to be mostly reactive (although without quizzing individually every CU it would be difficult to work out how much review is going on, it would be a useful survey however). I didn't get any response from the ombudsman, but I sent them an email query in the hope a subtle query might get a response, It might be better to publicly quiz them if I want any answers.

Essentially AUSC was a waste of time because it neither audited properly or had any teeth if it found problems. That's if it found problems, in the case of the WMUK member it found no abuse, which may have technically been correct (Chase me had the tools, was authorised to use the tools, and there was no policy to say he shouldnt) the very circumstances should have led to a drastic change in policy due to the COI alone. (It is self-evident that if you intercept an email through your place of employment from the political desk at a national newspaper -it should not need to be spelled out that you should not use your personal access to private data in order to collaborate with a political journalist) Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

AUSC was a misnomer -- it did not audit, it responded to reports of alleged misuse. Such reports can now be addressed to ArbCom. A proposal for some auditing systems to be put in place (by the OC, by ArbCom, by whatever) could be good but I only see it as tangentially related to the disbanding of AUSC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest any half competent auditor could put together a plan in a couple of days. The problem is that it would include random sampling of CUs performed by each CU every month. I can't honestly see either Arbcom or the advanced tool users agreeing to that level of oversight. The big problem as has just been demonstrated is that what one arbcom implements, another can remove. It would need to be a community enforced oversight process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to agree, every CU action is already logged for any other CU to review. If ArbCom decided tomorrow that they wanted to audit CU usage, they could (and it might not be a bad idea, although I doubt they'd be particularly willing to add that to their workload). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

But it still wouldn't really be auditing. It would be arbcom checking a group of people it effectively has complete control over, contains past and present members etc, and would have no accountability towards anyone. It would have zero oversight from anyone who didn't have an inherent obligation towards arbcom. That's not how auditing works. An auditor has to be independent and not beholden to who they are auditing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I have in the past put together proposals for what auditing could be done. Currently we do not even know

1. How many checkuser actions are performed by each user
2. Which or how many are in response to:
   1. SPI requests
   2. WMF requests
   3. On the checkuser's own cognisance (or as the policy say, fishing expeditions).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Regarding the first point, we do have six month rolling statistics for checkuser and oversight activity at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics. Or did you have some other count in mind? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Either I wasn't pointed to those figures last time, or I had forgotten. Very useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

That doesn't account for all possibilities. A request could be made to the arbcom and/or functionaries list or other private request. For example during my year as an arbitrator I requested an experienced checkuser perform a check related to a ban appeal, and one of the very few CU checks I did personally was requested privately off-wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I proposed that CU requests should be logged and each action linked to a request. It seems sensible that an audit trail exist, showing who requested the CU and why, and who carried it out. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC).

It is acceptable for checkusers to perform checks without filing a prior request for checkuser, so long as those checks are within policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other functionaries, but I would have no problem whatsoever with an independent audit body reviewing actions I take as an OS, provided that any privacy and confidentiality requirements that the Foundation might have were met. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC).

@Guerillero: That's incredibly unhelpful. If you disagree that auditing is a good thing, say why. If you are saying that no, AC and CU have oversight, explain the process. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

When I sat on the AUSC list, as an arb, community member, and observer, nearly every referral that was investigatable came from a functionary or AUSC member that has been a functionary. The majority of things that came from non-functionaries were requests for information that can not be provided such as "Who has run CUs on me?", "How many CUs have been run on me?", and "I did not consent to being CUed". Also, in my time as an auditor, the people who had the least charitable interpretation of the CU and OS policies were the functionaries themselves. (Who, contrary to popular opinion, disagree about almost everything.) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is another related issue. CUs are known, so hiding who did what serves no purpose, it's also counter to most data protection principles regarding accountability. Second, individuals have a right to know how their private data is being used. If an editor asks "have I been CU?" There is no legitimate reason to hide that information from them. Given that any Checkuser in the UK or EU is also acting as a data handler for the WMF, the individual actually has a legal right to that information. Withholding it can be taken as a sign of misuse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No requests like that have come to AUSC or us, so far as I can recall, for the last 13 months. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You do not have the right to that information because EU law does not apply to a Florida-based corporation. That sort of information has not been released in the past and is governed by the current privacy policy.

I can forward you the relevant threads, Doug, if you would like them. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You might have a point if all CU information was stored on servers based in the US, accessed by US citizens, and all correspondence regarding it was made on accounts under the WMF'S control. Since none of that is in fact true, it doesn't actually matter where the WMF is based if EU citizens are storing data on other EU citizens in their own control. Hint, email accounts and mailing lists are incredibly bad ways to conduct any business involving private data if you don't want to run afoul of various countries data laws. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Guerillero Yes please, thanks. Doug Weller talk 21:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Both Elen of the Roads and I are of the opinion that there are probably major breaches of the Data Protection Act going on, and we expressed as much in 2012. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC).

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

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

Received. I have requested advice from the Foundation in light of Only in death's comments. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Stewards do have access to the oversight logs (not CheckUser logs, I think they should, but that's for another debate). When I was a steward, we sometimes did "handle" questionable oversighting as best we could on other wikis (I personally never saw anything problematic on enwiki). Unfortunately, "handle" is in quotation marks, because at most we could keep emailing those oversighters and asking them to reconsider. But now the OC can handle these cases, so perhaps that is for the best. --Rschen7754 19:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of CU/OS tools from the community members of AUSC whose terms have expired

Original announcement

Wikipedia:Arbitration Requests Case Kevin Gorman closed

Original announcement

EnWiki bureacrats can remove the sysop flag. I have done so as a local burecrat and noted that at m:Steward_requests/Permissions#Kevin Gorman@en.wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• The editor still holds self-granted WP:EFM rights, is there a standard procedure for this? –xeno^talk 18:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think so. Rich Farmbrough had EFM when he was desysopped, his EFM was removed then and reinstalled two days later because the ArbCom remedy didn't say anything about EFM. Kww lost his EFM when desysopped because the remedy in his case did explicitly ask for it, there have been issues with his EFM. This remedy doesn't say anything about EFM and I can't find anything on the Evidence page either. This all as a bystander commentary, unofficial etc.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  I think what is most reasonable is to remove it, and then if there exists an administrator who is willing to trust Kevin with the tools, that administrator can reapply ot. But as the tools were self-applied, and Kevin was now deemed to have lost access to the admin toolkit for judgment related reasons, I think the self-application needs to go as well. -- Avi (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  When was it added? WP:EFM is very clear on what you need to have to be granted EFM rights as a non-admin - from looking at the voting, Kevin was desysopped in large part because of his (lack of) judgement and understanding of basic wikipedia processes, I doubt he fulfills the criteria for EFM. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  It was added 15 Oct 2015 [3]. I see it has been removed by Xaosflux. I am in agreement with Avi above: without reference to any particular editor, self-granted EFM should be removed if administrator is removed; as it can't hold itself up by its bootstraps. –xeno^talk 19:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  I made a proposal here. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  I've suggested that the clerks notify the edit filter noticeboard in the event that an edit filter manager is desysopped. This will support either the of the current proposals (automatic removal or review) linked to by Kharkiv07. Regarding Kevin specifically, I do not have a strong opinion about whether his EFM rights should be removed or not and suggest that editors who are both active edit filter managers and administrators should excercise their best judgement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Aside from Rich Farmbrough, when Ceradon resigned under a cloud last year, their self-granted EFM rights was also (subsequently) removed. There's no policy, but I agree with the common practice of removing self-granted EFM rights, to be re-granted by another administrator at their discretion under policy is the right thing to do. -- KTC (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

While the removal of buttons might be for the best, this case should never have been accepted. Clearly a motion would have had the same instructions for the 'crats, without the month-plus-long drama fest and dragging the guy through the mud and over the coals. I urge the committee not to do it this way in the future. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 04:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the right decision. Everyking (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• I would agree with you Seraphimblade if it were not self-granted. As it stands any Kevin can ask any admin willing to return it. HighInBC 07:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't say I disagreed with the removal, only that the decision didn't require it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well Reaper Eternal obviously disagrees. WP:EFM is very clear on what you need to have Edit Filter rights. "The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users; when there is a clear, demonstrated need for it. Demonstrated ability that one can and will use it safely is absolutely critical. This is because widespread disruption of the entire encyclopedia can easily occur—even unintentionally—with the smallest of mistakes in changing edit filters. Therefore, demonstrated knowledge of the extension's syntax and in understanding and crafting regular expressions is absolutely essential. Bolding mine. As Kevin self-assigned this right, none of the above checks were performed. As he has been de-mopped in large part due to his judgement (and exercise thereof), how on earth does he qualify? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I self-assigned EFM because it gave me more information about an entire large wikiconference being autoblocked to the point that I had a much better guess about the cause of the block (because some of the log entries looked like EF triggered blocks, and, in an undocumented feature, EFM did allow me to see more about the block to the point that it let me figure out what was wrong and unblock the conference at the same time before the multiple checkusers IAR checkusering trying to figure it out were able to do so. Since I attend large wiki-events with regularity, although I'm unlikely to edit EF's (though I do know enough regex to edit all but the most complicated ones,) the fact that it'll let me figure out the issue faster at future events means there's valid use in me having it, although it's not like it's a critical right for me currently. I've had EFM for months, and the only thing I've managed to do with it so far is unblock a couple hundred autoblocked people (since it made their block logs more informative - though I haven't the faintest idea why.) Any new EF I ever write I'll certainly run by someone else before trying to use to make sure it does what I intend it to. Since I still hold confidential information that I've never disclosed from both being at WMF, the Wiki-PR investigation, and a few other things, I would imagine the idea of me leaking private EF's to anyone is a bit far-fetched. Even if you look at the most recent arb case which ended in a desysop (has a full case where the only subject involved was an admin ever not ended in a desysop?,) you'll note there's no findings of fact that I made any choices that significantly disrupted Wikipedia other than generating an arbcom case, so I'm not sure why I'd start fucking with EF's disruptively now. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 21:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• So the obvious question is: "Now that you can't block or unblock anybody and you don't write edit filters, why do you need EFM?" Hat collecting is not a reason. --DHeyward (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Related note, while I did remove the EFM flag based on this closure, I did leave it open to discuss further with KG if he disagreed, which he did not. Now that the wheel has come around, suppose any other admins will need to go to dispute resolution if this is to be changed again; outside User:Kevin Gorman simply asking to be unflagged? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd encourage you not to view it as wheelwarring in any significant fashion, although technically it is - but so are many permissions changes. I've seen people have rollback granted and revoked four or five times over a period of time without consulting the admin who stripped it, which, in the same way, could be viewed as wheelwarring. In the end it's not a user right significant enough for me to be worth arguing about, let alone putting Reaper in the crosshairs of another shooting gallery case, so as I'll post on Reaper's page shortly, although I appreciate his vote of confidence and do have some legitimate use for it, if an admin has a serious issue with it, I'd much rather Reaper remove it than enter the firing range on the wrong end. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 21:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

To be 100% clear: I do not consider Reaper Eternal's reversal of my action to be "wheel warring"; my statement above is meant as a warning that further actions by other without clear discussion may be considered wheeling now that there has been 1 cycle. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Original announcement

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

Floquenbeam reappointed an Oversighter

Original announcement

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