Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original announcement

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