Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 38

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

Original announcement

• How's that for a final result! On record: the original block was inappropriate, and the subsequent desysop was inappropriate, therefore, the inappropriate desysop in response to the overturning of the inappropriate block is endorsed. What a legacy this year's group is leaving.  Swarm  talk  09:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• To put it another way, a good block is soured by by involvement and not every inappropriate action demands a remedy. Had Maxim not come to ARC after the desysop or been as contrite, perhaps things would have been different. To overuse my car analogy, it's okay to say speeding is illegal but not pull every single car over. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Good analogy, that or, perhaps, 'straddling the lane.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Not that it this is dispositive, but I believe the outcome of the case is consistent with the vast majority of community opinion as expressed on the workshop. I'm not sure what remedy you are suggesting we should have impose in response to isolated missteps or differences of opinion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I know there is a lot of behind the scenes context that goes into these final decisions, don't get me wrong, but ultimately, when we come out with remedies that are counterintuitive to the findings of fact, and the only good explanation is that you've basically parroted the community's opinion, one wonders what the point of it all is. If an admin self-unblocks, obviously that's a hugely controversial, scandalous thing, and all of the focus is going to be them. However, if you retroactively assess the original block to be illegitimate, that's actually important context in regards to everything that subsequently happened. The admins who subsequently enforced the block, and the crat who dubiously invoked IAR to usurp emergency desysopping authority in a non-emergency situation, weren't even in the right. Fred was a victim himself, even if he responded the wrong way and made everyone freak out. Not trying to beat anyone up or rehash the situation, but that is the apparent finding of fact by Arbcom, and the pursuant decision should have been objective and cautious of being influenced by a mob mentality. All three users were in the wrong, yet Fred got the guillotine, Boing got a very gentle talking to, and Maxim did not even indirectly get any sort of generalized discouragement for performing an inappropriate desysop. The final decision was not really balanced the way the blame was, and the only apparent explanation for this is that the controversy was centered on Fred. I understand Fred's unpopular, and Maxim and Boing are popular, and to a certain extent, your remedies are forced to reflect that, but come on, no disapproval over the desysop at all? Really? Also, I think it's humorous that users are trying to minimize the magnitude of actions like an INVOLVED block and an unauthorized desysop, both of which are on the same level as self-unblocking. This isn't "50% of cars are speeding and we can't pull them all over". This is more akin to "there's three drunk drivers and eleven cops, and one gets thrown in the slammer, one gets a verbal warning, and one doesn't even get pulled over".  Swarm  talk  21:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I think Maxim was wrong, but I do not think Fred was anything even in the same universe of being "guillotined." Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If you don't like my hyperbolic choice of word for the most severe penalty in the arsenal in response to misusing the mop, feel free to substitute your own.  Swarm  {talk}  01:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Penalty? That seems to assume a conclusion. Of course, no removal of permissions is suppose to be a penalty/punishment. On the other hand, many removals of permissions will draw a claim by someone that this or that particular removal is a penalty/punishment. So, we leave that to an elected committee to decide because, we might all have different views on this or that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You're a pedantic one.  Swarm  {talk}  02:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You are commenting on me? At any rate, it remains when we have multiple accounts that "did wrong" in different ways, it does not follow that all have the same remedy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Why was Fred the only editor to get a "used rollback inappropriately" finding of fact? 28bytes (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps because no other party did? I know I didn't, and I was the major antagonist. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: You might want to double-check that statement. 28bytes (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

And you know using Twinkle to edit-war without using edit summaries is not a legitimate use of that tool, right? I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble here – I understand everyone was having a bad day, it happens to all of us – but the idea that only Fred was reverting inappropriately is, at best, revisionist history. If there's going to be a finding of fact regarding inappropriate reverts, it should not single out only one of the parties who did that. 28bytes (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I never suggested other parties were not wrong in the edit war (and I have openly accepted my failing in that), but there are no policy prohibitions on using the Twinkle tool without providing an edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I linked above to WP:Twinkle's "Abuse" section, in which it says Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used. Are you saying that because WP:Twinkle is not tagged as a policy page, we can ignore that section and use Twinkle however we like? I'm not trying to go all Fram on you, but come on, this is some pretty awful wikilawyering. If you're going to revert a good faith editor, you need to provide an edit summary. 28bytes (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I will not lawyer over the use of Twinkle, I am simply replying to suggestions of misuse of Rollback. Misuse of Twinkle is an entirely new issue, and you're way too late to try to introduce that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If your Twinkle interface is like mine, literally the only difference between Twinkle's rollback and non-Twinkle rollback is that the "[rollback]" links are slightly different shades of blue. We will have to agree to disagree that clicking the rollback link with the slightly lighter shade of blue while edit-warring is an "entirely new issue." 28bytes (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Those three diffs were not made by a party to the case, and Arb cases typically do not make judgments on non-parties. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbs, does your understanding match BsZ's? That Fred was singled out for the inappropriate reverting finding of fact because Twinkle isn't rollback and the other rollbacker wasn't made a party? It would have been perfectly OK to limit the scope of the case to Fred's self-unblocking, but if you're going to include FoFs related to rollback misuse it's really not kosher to single out only one of the people doing that. 28bytes (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I thought the "rollback misuse" issue was a very minor part of the case, as reflected in my vote comments on the proposed decision. Also speaking for myself (although it's a moot point as to me personally if we don't get any more cases this year), input on what a case decision should contain is more useful if presented on the workshop or the proposed decision talkpage while the case is being decided, rather than on this page after the case has been closed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, this isn't something I'm just springing on everyone after the fact. I provided my input very, very early in the process. I don't understand how an objective observer could look at the page history of the locus of dispute and conclude that Fred was the only one making sketchy reverts. I see from the proposed decision page that the committee is basing the "inappropriate rollback" finding of fact on evidence from User:Jytdog. It is unfortunate that no one thought to double-check Mr. Dog's work. 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with NYB. The rollback finding is a statement of fact but was largely irrelevant to the remedies. For me the desysop rested on the self-unblocking, not anything to do with rollback. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Then why include it? 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@28bytes: You'd have to ask the drafters. Perhaps it was meaningful to the decision-making of other arbs. From my point of view the Finding is accurate as a statement of fact; it's just "meh" in terms of relevance to the remedies. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's perhaps a tricky case, but I think the four remedies are reasonable and I think ArbCom did a generally good job on this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• I would just note here that when I tried a few years ago to make rollback available to all autoconfirmed users by default, my primary argument was that it is the same as Twinkle. I received extremely strong pushback from some who insisted that the rollback tool was "more powerful" than Twinkle rollback. I still don't see why that is but apparently substantial portions of the community feel that way. I think this was the right decision in the end all around, but also that it could've come to the same conclusion without that particular finding. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
• What a lot of hoopla over nothing. And the Twinkle/rollback issue is not new.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) now that we have extended confirmed, which has effectively the same technical threshold (actually higher) as users who are granted rollback, it might make sense to combine the two, not that I think that the suggestion would make it through the community RfC process... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

TBD TBH, the whole situation shouldn't have been taken to Arbcom. Emotions at the time were riding high & a cooling off period would've sufficed. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: who is TBD, or what does the acronym mean here? I can't find it in WP:ALPHABETSOUP. MPS1992 (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I meant TBH. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Up until the removal of administrative privileges occurred, other paths could have been chosen. But once that happened, the arbitration committee was required to exercise its oversight role. isaacl (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

What Issacl said, Maxim's action basically forced it into Arbcom. I've said it before, Maxim was wrong to do what they did. On the other hand, someone was going to bring a case to Arbcom to remove Fred's permissions (there was so much overwrought talk of a "bright line" by a chorus, when in actuality Fred being unblocked created no emergency, at all.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I originally posted a tongue-in-cheek response to this. But no, the poem is not about comparing anyone to Nazis: "“First They Came,” in other words, is particularly attuned to the needs of the modern protest: It offers wisdom about the evils of the past, in an attempt to prevent more evils of the future. To use its language is to claim an understanding of history—and an understanding, too, of how readily its mistakes can be repeated by those who fall victim to the luxuries of forgetfulness. It is #neveragain, and #neverforget, with the subjects added in." ^[1]. So what, was I responding to? We have a functionary using this community's version of a meme (I thought we didn't template regulars?) to stop conversation that is centered on free-speech: that, at the very least has a chilling effect. "As functionaries have a high profile within the project, and are the face of Wikipedia both to its editors and to the wider world, it is damaging to the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole if these users are repeatedly embroiled in controversy." Above and beyond that, they're trying to stop a discussion about a case they were involved in! There are claims above that the team who asked for the job of investigating these sorts of situations did not perform their due diligence in determining that some of the principal evidence was tainted by a user who has since left the project. A respected editor appears to have been ignored because their story did not seem to sit with the consensus reality at the time. So, while I may have crossed a line (although Goodwin recanted) I'm not the only one. So why was I the only one to get my edit reverted, I wonder? In any case, here is another quote (without, I hope, any implication that any person on this project is another's property):

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

― James Madison"

All the best, Crazynas ^t 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You are making something into an issue that doesn't need to be one. Natureium (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Surprised that all the other admins that reblocked Bauder weren't desysopped for wheel-warring. It was text book wheel-warring as they rushed to redo an admin sanction. Wheel-warring isn't justified "because we were right" nor is redoing ad admin action somehow not wheel-warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• The clerk team is delighted to have Guerillero back! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Awesome to see! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• The Brad Cabal has struck again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I’m pretty sure I understand the intent of this one (see the AP2 section of WP:AELOG/2018), but I think it may have made more sense just to use names rather than modify the procedures here. Not a huge deal, but I can see circumstances where this wouldn’t be great. Anyway, not the worst thing in the world, but my attempt at constructive feedback. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, The motion was sprung from discussion at User_talk:Doug Weller/Archive 53#Taking over Coffee's sanctions and User talk:Doug Weller#Following up, so definitely related to Coffee's retirement. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah. As I said, not the worst thing, and I’m hardly the type to hate on people doing a tough job where really any solution that was posted would get complaints, but making this Coffee-specific seems like it would have been better. Ex. admin X places a TBAN on editor Y. Admin X gets desysoped for inactivity two years later. Editor Y, who in this hypothetical couldn’t and shouldn’t have the TBAN lifted on appeal, admin shops for someone not familiar with the topic area and who they’ve had good interactions with in the past. TBAN lifted, more disruption occurs, and we have to deal with it for a few months with admins heming and hawing about reinstating a recently lifted sanction (because once a sanction is lifted it takes double the disruption to get a new one...)

  This is of course a hypothetical, but it’s also one that could easily happen, especially as we’re getting more inactivity desysops from formerly active admins. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  That is indeed why I thought the change should be limited to page restrictions and not TBANs/blocks. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Well, for AP2, maybe it could work, but there are some obscure DS areas when you have stuff like indefinite full protection that’s been in place for years (don’t ask me to find them, but we have several) and where this is justified and probably shouldn’t be lifted without discussion since it’s more likely to attract comments from people who know why the sanctions exist. Unilateral lifting in these cases would also be a Bad Thing(tm).

  The issue we’re running into here is that one former administrator who has said he has permanently left the project imposed sanctions on basically every page somewhat related to AP2 that he came across, and some of those likely weren’t needed. The simple solution would be to apply this motion to his actions and deal with any future scenarios that are similar when they happen. Anyway, thanks to the committee for addressing this. It adds clarity even if I think a narrower solution would have been better right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: Could you clarify your feedback? I understand you to be suggesting better would have been to authorise the transfer of specific Coffee sanctions, but to go no further nor to provide for the next inactive administrator's actions to be taken over. AGK ■ 00:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this amendment does not do anything to inactive admins' sanctions. It does something to former admins' sanctions. While this may have spawned from Coffee's sanctions, that was more the catalyst for us to look at when it makes sense for AE actions to be revertable and when it doesn't. I imagine there will be a broader conversation about this in the future, because we likely want to consider the question of inactivity. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • AGK, my point is that DS was meant to deal with the most complex and contested topic areas on-wiki. In many circumstances even if an admin has lost the bit the reasons for imposing the sanctions still stand and would benefit from the standard appeal process. I don’t want someone lifting full protection from some random Eastern European ethnic dispute without discussion just because they don’t believe in full protecting a page long-term and the admin who did it retired.
    To be shorter: the problem of sanctions from hypothetical desysoped admins has never and is unlikely to ever actually be a problem outside of this one particular circumstance. Crafting a generic motion to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist outside of one very specific set of circumstances opens up the door to a lot of problems. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree that there is a possible issue here regarding admin shopping. But the alternative (previously status quo) effectively removed the most straightforward and I'd argue, a lot of the time, easiest and most likely to be granted appeal option from editors through no fault of their own. That, along with the points made above about page restrictions, was mainly my impetus for changing it. If a TBAN is removed through admin shopping the editor can always be taken back to AE and the sanction added back again (or a stronger version of it given the gaming) so a little, short-term disruption might be caused but it can easily be fixed. Long-term blocks are another key area where this modification might be useful as it's less likely a block appeal will be successful if it needs to be copied to AE and the editor in question can't participate fully in the discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I think my point is that the previous status quo has really only been a significant issue in one case, and trying to solve a non-existent hypothetical issue in other cases that also has the potential to create problems seems less than ideal. When you’re dealing with a bunch of hypothetical pluses and minuses, it’s best to wait to change things until a long-term problem presents itself, in my view. That being said, I get all of you have a thankless job and I don’t see this as a “the world is ending” moment. Just raising it so as to encourage thinking about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I'm assuming Mkdw's exclusion was an oversight? Kurtis ^(talk) 20:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's always the possibility I was removed from the committee by two-thirds majority vote (joking, I hope). Although, it would not be the first time someone was seemingly informed they were being dismissed via public announcement. Mkdw ^talk 20:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was an oversight, though I'm not sure anyone really wants to be welcomed to the committee. (See my talk.) ;-) Katie^talk 22:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that DeltaQuad is transitioning from ARBCOM member to ARBCOM clerk. Maybe this will mean that clerks will receive a raise in 2019? At least give everyone an updated "Get Out Of ANI Free" card. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think DQ being a clerk is great. As an ex-arb they are in a position to know when clerk action is needed, which has at times been a serious failing on the clerks team. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)c

And for the soon-to-be-ex-members, here's fun thing for you if you want it:

This user was on the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.

The bananas really make it if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

These conspiracy theories are ridiculous. As a former Arbitration Committee clerk, I can joke about DeltaQuad taking a step up from the committee to do clerk work (which is much less stressful). I'm sure she will be invaluable.

I don't care for the clerk team criticism, Beeblebrox, but I do love your userbox bananas! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Clerk work is definitely a lot less stress than Arb work, especially the backend work, something I need time away from. This is a nice place to remain, and I'd still be on the clerks list regardless. And @Beeblebrox: I absolutely want that. Think I may go put it on my page early! -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We're lucky to have you on the clerk team! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, and we were having such nice discussions about kicking Mkdw off the committee Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ignore the relationship between the arbs and the clerks; it's clear the real issue here is the hostility between Katie and mkdw! Natureium (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Is it because I'm a cat person? Mkdw ^talk 02:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

In some of the wisest words of Edward Snowden, I think you are a cat lord. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

So we've just had an ARCA because people were forever taking TRM to AE for breaching an ambiguous sanction, and the AE admins on nearly every occasion said "no foul committed".

So why, in trying to address the problem the ARCA brought to you, have you chosen to amend the old ambiguous sanction and make it more ambiguous?

When the suggestion was raised, (very late in a very very very long process, indeed after you started voting) to drop the word "general", I raised some serious concerns about this at the discussion: ([1]).

OR replied to my comment. I do not understand how her response addresses the problem I raised.

As things stand, TRM is in breach of your sanction if he so much as says to me "hey Dweller, given that you're not very good at formatting citations, I've helped and fixed them" in the FA candidate we're both working on. (He'd be right. I'm lazy.) Because that would be a reflection on my competence with formatting citations.

The result of your action is going to be gleeful rubbing of hands and bad-faith actions taken against TRM / woefully mistaken good-faith misinterpretations of the revised sanction. Take your pick, same bad outcome. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

All this confusion between constructive feedback and criticizing someone's competence, that would explain a few bosses I've had! :) "You should put a comma there" = fine. "You're apparently too stupid to know you need a comma there" = no. Obviously nobody intends to tell TRM he can't review articles or collaborate on content. In fact I think providing solicited critical feedback - input people have specifically requested or invited - would be an excellent place to refocus energy. If the hypothetical gleeful hand-rubbers do in fact materialize, you can always (yes, I know we're not speedy) file an ARCA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No, your last-second amendment (removal of "general" actually during voting) has effectively stopped me from risking doing any kind of review, including the GAN reviews I was doing, the FLCs and the FACs, in fact I can't even respond to people's criticism of my own work as it could be interpreted by trigger happy admins and some other individuals as implicit observations of competence, or lack of. From the preceding comment, it also means I won't be able to review ITNs as the nominations don't explicitly solicit my opinions, yet my comments could easily be interpreted by some as people's lack of competence. We'll need to reconvene another clarification as soon as possible as this is simply unacceptably vague, and considerably worse than the first botched up version (which was similarly suddenly acceptable to everyone at Arbcom after an interminable delay). Even something as straightforward as a sitting Arb not even knowing if it's allowable for me to respond to a comment on a DYK on my actual talk page, rather than simply WP:TRM is indicative that this is really a bit of a disaster. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

We might as well ask TRM to stop editing here (at least, that's what the current state of the sanction broadly seems to allude to). Lourdes 10:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I know this has rumbled on for a long time already, but I really think this needs to be revisited by ArbCom immediately. The point of the ARCA was that the existing sanction was unworkable due to the vagueness of the restriction. So it was imperative that it either be removed and replaced with something workable, (which I think the topic bans on ERRORS and DYK broadly are), or redefined in such an explicit manner that there could be no further disputes about what constituted an infringement. @Opabinia regalis: I take your point re those two examples you mention, but there are many shades of grey in between those, and also a fundamental disagreement between admins on where the bright line is placed. The current situation is that TRM is having to turn down reviews even for those with no history of dispute with him, simply because of lack of clarity and a fear of things he says being misinterpreted. That can't be right. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Amakuru I can't even recall a "dispute" with anyone with whom I've worked at GAN, FAC or FLC. Literally hundreds and hundreds (maybe even thousands of reviews). And now I can't risk it. And it's not because of the people with whom I work, it's because of the people who were always so quick to drag me to AE, where it was demonstrated that something like 85% of reports were declined. It's those people, with whom some I've never even interacted or with whom I aim to no longer ever interact, who are going to be the ones to exploit these ambiguities, as they already did before the additional ambiguity added by this clarification. Lourdes nailed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: TRM doesn't have to turn down reviews. He needs to conduct reviews without commenting on editors competence, which is something he should be doing anyway. Most editors conduct reviews without making things personal; if TRM is unable to do so, that's part of the problem. If he steps over the line inadvertently, there are enough admins at AE who would support the spirit and the not the letter of the sanction. Vanamonde (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The point is that this has made the situation more ambiguous, not more clearer as some presidents would say. It now means I don't even have to raise specific language or tone, it can just be as simple as "we don't format things like that, we use this" which can easily be construed as a comment on the competence of the nominator. I have always reviewed material by telling people where they're going wrong, so they can do it better next time. This "clarification" has now made it basically impossible to do that without further frivilous AE cases (and that statement just there is now blockable I guess as it's related to the "general motivations and/or competence" of those individuals who raised the 85%+ of AEs which were turned down. Your final sentence sums the inadequacy of this "clarification" absolutely perfectly and is precisely what was not wanted to be achieved yet was voted for unanimously. Post-funeral, and if it hasn't been done so already, I will raise another ARCA so we can try and do it properly, and even wait until a proposal stops changing before it gets voted on. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

TRM, I've just gone and had a look at your comments at a bunch of random FA/FAL/GA reviews from the past couple months or so, and they were all constructive criticism directed at the content of the article being reviewed. I didn't see a single comment from you in the ones I looked at that I would characterize as being directed at anyone's competence, even when you're strongly disagreeing with the person you're replying to. If you carry on conducting yourself at FA/FAL/GA reviews exactly as you have been (ie, focusing on the content and not commenting on the contributor), there is no reason to think you will be sanctioned for it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

But, once again, the actual point here is that this very clarification was intended to stop the frivilous trips to AE. That you as on of the Arbs who held all the in camera discussions and made last-minute changes don't think what I've said is sanctionable is actually quite irrelevant, it's all the other editors, some of whom with whom I've never interacted, who will continue to exploit this committee's considerably worse wording. What happens now is that I can be summarily blocked for two days by any trigger happy admin at who deems any of my comments anywhere relating to criticism of content as criticism of competence (because, inherently, in a lot of cases, it is because of lack of competence). So this whole protracted debate has made things categorically worse and the way in which it was conducted (e.g. voting while the motion was being changed, off-wiki disucssions which resulted in a unanimous falling into line etc) is a terrible legacy from this committee. It's not over, sadly. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The amendment as it currently stands is so broad as to be unenforceable at best and hostile at worst. It effectively bans TRM from the areas in which he is most prolific - not just DYK but reviews in general. It effectively amounts to a site ban and telling him he's not welcome to contribute here. WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet it was unanimously approved by Arbcom. Unanimously. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom, you really didn't listen to me during the ARCA. Please listen to me and others now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. To give a common example, if TRM says "this DYK hook has problems because X was missed at the QPQ stage", that clearly isn't a comment on the general competence of the editor that did the QPQ, it just means they missed something on this occasion. But with the removal of the word "general" from the restriction, that completely mild observation would now be blockable. That can't be right, surely. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Noting that something was "missed" is simply noting that a mistake was made. Anybody can make a mistake, so pointing one out is not a reflection on competence, at all. And clearly, given the degree of support TRM still enjoys, the chance of him actually being sanctioned for such commentary is effectively nil. Gatoclass (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of frivilous AE cases brought against me before this "clarification", I'd say your position is utter bollocks. Arbcom have simply acceded to the few who wanted more opportunity to discipline me. That 90% of the AEs were dismissed has somehow become an opportunity to move the bar to ensure that 90% of the AEs now are affected. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"Utter bollocks", you say? So much for your alleged concern about being unable to offer robust criticism following the rewording of this sanction. But in response, I'm inclined to return your expletive. One could drive a truck through the word "general", as we saw in the latest AE case.

And no, the sanction wasn't in my view reworded to stop the frivolous trips to AE as you claimed above. It was reworded to provide the community with a degree of protection from your predilection for incivility. If the price of an effective sanction is that you might occasionally get dragged to AE on frivolous grounds, then I'm sorry, but that's the price you pay for your well established unwillingness or inability to play by the same rules the rest of us have to abide by. Gatoclass (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no, and don't take this as an observation on competence, but you're missing the point. The flippant and frivolous nature of several of the AE trips meant the sanction needed to be re-visited to prevent such an issue, not to make the sanction so generalist that it becomes open to much more abuse. There was overwhelming evidence that such trips to AE were a waste of community time and that no infringements occurred. This "clarification" just massively increases the likelihood of further such flippant trips. It is, by far, the least helpful "clarification" I have ever seen. And that it was modified during voting is simply astonishing. And voted for unanimously despite the massive rift in comprehension of this situation in the community. Indeed, even a sitting Arb wasn't able to adequately answer my subsequent questions about the "clarification". Now you don't need a truck to drive through the wording, you can simply apply it to even the most casual observation (e.g. "No, that's grammatically incorrect" - OBSERVATION ON EDITOR'S INABILITY TO WRITE GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT SENTENCES = COMPETENCE = BLOCKWORTHY!). Even this very post is blockworthy. Don't you see that? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The sanction was altered because as it stood it was so narrow as to be virtually unactionable. But that was not the only remedy. In addition, the length of time for which you could be blocked without recourse to ARCA was limited to a paltry two days. AFAIK, you are the only user for whom the escalating block model for incivility has effectively been vacated, an extraordinary concession. Additionally, Sandstein, the admin who came under the most criticism at your AE requests, has expressed a disinclination to participate in any more requests involving you, which is another monkey off your back. And yet still you and your friends complain. Clearly you won't be satisfied unless the sanction is completely vacated—because it's impossible to word any sanction that completely precludes gaming by either party—and that's not an option. Most people in your position would be facing a siteban by now, so I think you'd be well advised to quit while you're still ahead. Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you cannot silence me. Multiple frivolous AE cases were thrown out as "no fault found" (about 85% of them actually). And I'm not the only person who can see the last-gasp removal of "general" during voting is a complete shambles. Indeed, this very post is blockable now under those new conditions, as it could be interpreted quite easily by some as a note relating the competence of Arbcom and those members who went along with voting for a moving target. Perhaps that's the point, to completely silence any kind of complaint I may wish to register because now anything I write which goes against any other editor can be declared as a comment on competence or motivation. There's little point in continuing to discuss this with you as you've already made your views known to everyone, you tried to haul me off to ANI in the past because you disagreed with my editing norms (modified as a result of your own behaviour), that was also thrown out. Continuing this discussion with you is completely pointless I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I quite agree that there is no point discussing these matters with you, as you never take any responsibility for your own behaviour, it's always the other guy's fault. But if you are incapable of accepting criticism, I can at least put my case for others to read and consider. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I can and have taken criticism, even of my motivations and competence, for 13 years. You, for instance, questioned my motivations by attempting to get me sanctioned at ANI (now a blockable comment). That, like the 85% of frivolous AEs, was a complete waste of time (now a blockable comment). Just read some of the other comments here from those individuals with whom I have collaborated over 13 years of content creation and quality control. Working in areas where there are substantial ownership problems is unpleasant but it has to be done (now a blockable comment). Putting up with being called "nit picky" or a "MOS maven" goes with the territory. But rather than "it's always the other guy's fault" perhaps you should read it as "no longer a level playing field". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, TRM could now be blocked if he put this message on my user talk: "hey Dweller, given that you're not very good at formatting citations, I've helped and fixed them". It's ridiculous.

It's left me with the impression that ArbCom looked at all those 'no fault' AE reports and decided that the problem wasn't that TRM hadn't done anything wrong, but that the goalposts needed to be moved so that TRM could be found in the wrong in future.

It's really unacceptable. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The sanction was intended to prevent TRM's chronic incivility. TRM continued to be uncivil without breaching the letter of his sanction. Therefore, the sanction was modified. That's where the difference of opinion really lies; if you believe that there's absolutely nothing wrong with his behavior, then of course you think the sanction is draconian. There's also absolutely no evidence that TRM would actually be blocked over a frivolous report. Vanamonde (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that there has been no evidence the community thinks TRM is guilty of chronic incivility (as evidenced by the complete lack of success in the frivolous reports at the various noticeboards. As it stands now you have an editor under a more restrictive standard than that called for by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL (which are inconsistantly applied by the admin corps and arbcom anyway) while doing absolutely fuck all to address the chronic quality issues that are rife within the areas TRM deals with. Good job. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Addressing content issues directly is outside ARBCOM's mandate. You know that. Also, as I said at ARCA, 33 admins at AE alone have told TRM that he needed to work to be more polite, not to mention a number of others at other venues and most members of ARBCOM across two years. And most of those people are those who appreciate his work greatly. This could be solved by TRM just dialing it back a little, but he (still) hasn't recognized there may be a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly failing basic quality checks like 'Is the information sourced by a reference within the article' is an editing conduct issue - it is not asking for the content to be vetted, it is asking for an editor to abide by Wikipedia's policies on editing. And 'be more polite' is not 'you have a civility problem' when the admin corps are at the same time inconsistantly or outright refusing to enforce NPA/CIVIL depending on which editor is reported. You want to solve civility issues? Actually enforce the policies we already have and hold TRM to the same standard as everyone else, rather than an arbitary higher standard that NO OTHER EDITOR has to comply with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

<e/c>Any number of our admins are routinely impolite. If TRM had stepped out of bounds, he would have been slapped down at those AEs. I don't see why he should be held to higher standards than admins. And this new sanction imposes impossibly high standards. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

TRM is not being held to a higher standard than admins: any admin behaving as he does would be desysopped for conduct unbecoming. TRM would be "slapped down" at AE only if admins were good at enforcing the civility policy, which we're not, especially with respect to editors with a long history of productive contributions. A person without his abilities would just be handed a broad topic-ban. That's why there's a more specific restriction; to allow TRM to continue to do what he does well, while restricting uncollegial behavior. Vanamonde (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• There is indeed a huge double standard problem here. On the one hand, we have the whole en:wp, where articles are supposed to be sound at the statistical level. The Trump page is supposed to be illustrated on the average with a genuine picture of the said Trump (instead of a penis, or anything else), the penis page is supposed to be illustrated on the average with various genuine penises (instead of... put here your preferred anything else), etc. There is no dead-line for these time-averages. On the other hand, we have the main page, where each and every em-dash should be furbished in order to shine under the sun for the morning review. One can discuss if a barking Editor-in-Chief is, or not, better than a not-so-barking Editor-in-Chief, but a not-so-Chief Editor-in-Chief is a recipe for failure, at least for real-life newspapers. Recognizing that the whole Timely-Main-Page process is largely understaffed, and that the decision process used there is sub-optimal (to adopt a politically correct formulation) would help greatly. Is this absolutely out of the remit of the ArbCom? Sure ! Pldx1 (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Question it took years to get here, a lot of hurt feelings, walls and walls of text. Why has no one thought to add a bullet to WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack? "Questioning the competence of another editor". Was all this work for a single individual? Does it have no application to the thousands of other people who contribute at Wikipedia? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @LaserLegs: that's not something the Arbitration Committee can do. We can't rewrite policy, that's up to the community. I don't think it would pass. It's too vague and in fact we do discuss and block editors who are clearly incompetent to edit. Doug Weller talk 08:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Original announcement

IMHO, all editors who are currently in IBANs with any of the Site-banned editors, should have those Ibans ended. I'd even go further, and suggest that any editors (not site-banned) who are topic-banned from the 'gender topic', should have their topic-bans ended. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to your first point (although if they are removed they should be noted such that one-bay bans can be considered should the banned editor be unbanned in the future). I do oppose automatically removing topic bans from non-banned editors (regardless of the topic area), although individual bans can be be looked at individually of course. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

By our rules, we'd need individual editors to appeal their sanctions to consider lifting them. This is mostly because doing otherwise would involve a community consult period of our own initiative, which these editors may not want. It also would create problems should the site-banned editors be unbanned, since a two-way IBAN may still have merit but we cannot impose an unblock condition on an editor other than the one being unblocked. I'm certainly welcome to hearing appeals from editors who face such IBANs, but I don't think we can do this wholesale. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Original discussion

Original announcement

Original announcement

• sounds reasonable -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

If Alex chose to return with a new account (abandoning the Alex Shih account), would a disclosure to ArbCom be required? If any new account applied for any advanced permission, would public disclosure be required? EdChem (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The committee hasn't stated that he needs to declare a clean start account, and personally I wouldn't object to him doing so, should that be his choice. However, clean start accounts have traditionally been not allowed to hold advanced permissions on Wikipedia - I would expect public disclosure before running for RfA for example. In addition, I see that certain rights would be inaccessible to him for the next 2 years. Worm^TT(talk) 13:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I cannot but be curious about whether Alex is the first person to be struck off NDA-rolls......? ∯WBG^converse 14:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that the Foundation finally took action. I just wish they'd been a bit faster. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

He was just added to the new list on January 28, presumably after signing the new agreement while running for Steward. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Foundation have removed global and local advanced permissions from editors before and explicitly stated that they cannot re-obtain any advanced permissions Wikimedia wide for a certain length of time. That was pre-NDA days though. -- KTC (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex moving to a new account seems reasonable to me, but without informing ArbCom strikes me as problematic. If no one knows of any such new account, surely there is a danger of non-disclosure at an RfA or further misleading statements? I think that Alex made a lot of valuable contributions as an editor and certainly would not want a ban, and I can understand why he might clean start, but I do think disclosure to ArbCom or to at least some trusted editors (NYB, perhaps?) would be wise and desirable... and I am puzzled as to why ArbCom did not require some (private) notification of any return. EdChem (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I also think he should be required to notify ArbCom. I'd prefer that to confiding with just one editor. Doug Weller talk 16:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:BADSOCK, he would not be allowed to edit project space or run for RfA without disclosing. My personal view is that he would be ineligible for a clean start under that policy as an arbitration case has been opened to scrutinize his conduct, and that is explicitly mentioned as a condition preventing valid clean starts. Namely, he’d just be socking. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Under current RfA standards, would it not take years of editing to seek adminship? That question seems mooted to me. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed. If Alex made a sock account, he would need to edit Wikipedia like it's his full-time job for at least two years in order to pass an RfA. Judging from his previous activity levels, I think this is unlikely. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Probably not two years, but I agree with the larger point. People were asking hypotheticals, so I pointed to the relevant policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe a year and a half if he really goes for it ;-) (And yes, I just took the opportunity to make my usual "RFA sucks@@" comment, no concerns with your interpretation of policy.) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni is correct. While I believe Alex could return as a clean start account, should Alex ever seek a position of community trust again, such as admin, he would need to disclose his other account publicly or to ArbCom:

Deceptively seeking positions of community trust. You may not run for positions of trust without disclosing that you have previously edited under another account. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not an account, so when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or email the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA.

The circumstances around his resignation from ArbCom, subsequent retirement, and now statement from the Wikimedia Foundation, would almost certainly influence the outcome of an RFA even if a considerable amount of time had elapsed. While I think it is possible eventually Alex could regain the sysop tools, the past would need to be addressed, and therefore the community will need an opportunity to do so with Alex. Mkdw ^talk 17:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Is this statement from the WMF public? Where might it be found? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Refer to this announcement by WMFOffice (talk · contribs). AGK ■ 22:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks AGK. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni is correct. For reference, the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Clean start#Criteria, which states that Any user who [...] is currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee) [...] may not have a clean start. Mz7 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Does anyone have the slightest reason to belive Alex has any desire to start a new account, or are we just making up problems to solve here? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the latter. As a side note answering an earlier question, the WMF also de-CU'd all zhwiki CUs sometime last year. That's the most recent similar action from them, though it was not for misconduct. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not unprecedented (for example, Sam Blacketer) but probably unlikely in my opinion. --Rschen7754 05:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree that it's unlikely. Doug Weller talk 06:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think making up problems to solve seems to be in vogue on this page -- cf. GiantSnowman thread above. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

(moved from AE) This is probably nothing, I'm just procedurally noting this here. While gnoming around requested moves I've noticed a large RM discussion at Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Requested move 8 February 2019. While it hasn't run its seven-day course yet, I've noticed WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2 being noted with regards to WP:MOSMAC. I am not clued up enough on the situation in Macedonia or the ArbCom rulings with regards to it but several users have noted that a change in the ruling is probably necessitated by recent events, so I thought I ought to draw this to the committee's attention. SITH (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Committee passed a motion about this last year, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2#Macedonia 2: Motion: "The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion." (the motion then goes into details about how the RfC should be conducted). Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I and several others have interpreted the discussion at RM and ArbCom motion as allowing the move of Republic of Macedonia to North Macedonia, but requiring an RFC for further changes. However, this has not been explicitly stated by the motion, so the issue is unclear. If the someone on the Committee could clarify, that would be appreciated. Danski454 (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Danski454, Thryduulf, and StraussInTheHouse: If there is a question about June 2018 Motion re Macedonia 2, please file a Clarification and Amendment request --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a regular RfC open at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#Draft RFC. There is also a current Requested Move discussion at Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Requested move 8 February 2019, which risks getting into conflict with the RfC. The participants in the Requested Move should consider suspending their work, if they are hoping to meet the Arbcom requirements. Details are here:

The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.

The RfC is only a 'Draft RfC' right now and perhaps there should be an initial round to decide the format of a 'real RfC.' The RM participants could be asked to switch their interests over to the Draft RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The real life conflict over the name of what is now North Macadonia is over. We should not be extending the old conflict on Wikipedia by making it hadd to move on. Legacypac (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hang on, "North Macadonia"?? Stop the press!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I've been aware that the current RM on the main article runs counter to the letter of the Arbcom injunction, but the thing is, the whole process is going quite harmoniously and with far, far less conflict than the Arbs probably expected when they passed that injunction last year, so the injunction is now really a bit overkill, and as long as that's the case, I see no sense in not letting the process go ahead. There'll be a near-unanimous consensus for that page move, and it would make little sense for the arbs to stamp their foot down and make us all wait for another thirty days just because they said so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Note that the RM has now been closed and the move performed by admin User:MSGJ. Don't desysop him ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And as for the injunction that we should all hold off further changes and keep to the existing guideline until the RfC is settled, that seems pretty illusionary at this point. We can't stem the tide. Well-meaning (and often not very experienced) people are moving pages left, right and center. It seems hardly feasible to wave the Arbcom hammer at all of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Update for anybody interested: the promised RfC has now started at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. Good collaborative effort by a number of people in designing and preparing it, I might add. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement

5.He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin

What does this mean? Is it saying that he has to consult with another admin before warning message #6? "Advised to" sounds like it's optional, but "may not" is mandatory. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It means he may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages on a single editor's talkpage. Consulting another admin after that is merely a recommendation. The only actual restriction is that he may not place a sixth consecutive warning template or message on a single editor's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• There are multiple areas that seem ambiguous here as well like "may not consecutively block an editor" - does that mean if he blocks User:A he can't block User:A again unless anyone else blocks User:A, or does he have a "1 block per editor ever" type restriction? How does this work with range blocks, which could also have supernets, subnets, or individual addresses comingled? How does this impact the manual warnings and template requirements when range blocks could be in play? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • How is that ambiguous? The word "consecutive" has a very clear and unambiguous meaning. The wording is clearly not "only once ever". Warnings and templates are not given to ranges, only to individual editors. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Softlavender: the sequencing aspect of "consecutive" is a perspective phrase, what do you suggest would be an action that "breaks the sequence"? (e.g. If he blocks User:A - what event would need to occur before he could block User:A again?) — xaosflux ^Talk 02:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
      • He "may not consecutively block an editor" means someone else would need to block the editor before he could block them again. Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree with Softlavender here - If GS blocks editor A, if after that block expires A does something blockworthy, then GS may not block them but any other admin can (let's say I do it). If after the second block expires A does something blockworthy again, then GS is allowed to block them, but they wouldn't then be allowed to place a fourth block. If editor B is blocked by GS, then by me, then by say AGK, GS may place a fourth block (if justified). If editor C is blocked by me, then by GS, GS may not place a third block but could place a fourth block if someone other than him placed a third block. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Your post Thryduulf is hard to read and even harder to believe. GiantSnowman has had more than enough concerns and should be strongly advised to not use their tools in any other than day to day mop work. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
          • @Govindaharihari: Apologies for the hard-to-read aspect, but whether it's hard to believe or not, it is my understand of what he is allowed and not allowed to do. What GS is allowed to do do and what it is advisable they do are not always the same thing - exactly as for any other editor. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
            • TBH, I did not find Thryduulf's post hard to read; I also understood the restriction that way. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Thanks Thryduulf for the reply. Seems like a rather complicated situation reading the explanatory posts here, let's hope it resolves the situation. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nyttend - you are correct in that the intention is that the "may not" aspects are mandatory and the "advised" parts are optional. So he is not allowed to place six consecutive warnings, but it is optional if he wishes to bring the matter to another admin. The intention was not to force GS to take any action that is not required of any other user. No admin is required to block or warn or notify other admins - we are, after all, volunteers. However, if he feels that a sixth warning is appropriate, he is advised to bring it the attention of another admin rather than ignore it. If the other admin feels a warning is appropriate and gives the user that warning, then GS is back at the start of his five consecutive warnings. There is plenty of leeway in this; the idea is to simply get a fresh pair of eyes on the situation. In fact, all users would do well to get a second opinion after they alone have given a user five consecutive warnings. Five, I feel, is quite generous. I was thinking of the sequence in Twinkle where there are four escalating warnings, so I thought five was acceptable in that sometimes people want to move more slowly to a sanction, but six without a second opinion was too much. SilkTork (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux - the intention here was to use consecutive to mean "following continuously without a break"; the idea being to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the situation, but not to ban GS from blocking that user ever again. If someone else is getting involved there is more of a feel of consensus that the user is in the wrong rather than it being personal. This, in my experience, helps the user accept that they are doing something wrong; though if it's the same two admins playing block leap frog, the user could again feel victimised, so one would hope that GS would have the good sense to approach a variety of admins. The sooner a user accepts that they are not being victimised, but are genuinely in the wrong, the sooner they will stop misbehaving. SilkTork (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hypothetical: GS blocks editor X for 24 h for some valid reason. Two days later, editor X is blocked by admin Y for the same reason as GS's block, again for 24 hours. GS thinks the length should have escalated. Can GS change the block length and have not violated the restriction as there was an intervening action from Y? Alternatively, could GS suggest / strongly advise Y to extend the block, and if Y does so, can GS still be the next to block X? I hope GS would not do things like this, and I have no basis for suggesting it, but it occurred to me while reading the above comments? EdChem (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Meta suggestion re Arbcom procedures that could lead to desyopping

Thank you for considering a third way. I would welcome Arbcom making a commitment to considering making it part of the clerks' job that whenever a Proposed remedy of desysop is considered at Proposed decision, that a version of Proposed remedy 3.3.1 is automatically considered, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Where is the appropriate forum for me to formally propose this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have moved my comments to a new subsection as I am concerned they are not being noticed, given the long discussion below them about specifics of the case. I would like to propose a change to clerk procedures for all cases where desysopping is considered. What is the most appropriate forum to make a formal proposal? All of the ones I've considered might be appropriate are quite low traffic areas. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to propose changes to the clerks procedures, then the clerks noticeboard is the place to do it. However, I don't think your proposal is just a change of clerks procedures. If it were to be adopted (and I don't immediately have an opinion on whether it should be) then it could be done in one of two ways - either make it a formal part of arbitration policy such that a restriction of this type must also be considered when considering a desysop; or it could just become a part of arbitration procedures which are less binding but would in practical terms achieve a similar aim. Arbitration policy has a clearly defined but (probably necessarily) very bureaucratic mechanism for changes, arbitration procedures just require a motion of the committee to change. All things considered I think a new procedure would be more appropriate for this proposal and a modification to policy - but it is not defined explicitly where proposals regarding them should be made. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Procedures redirects to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee so that page would seem to be the most logical place if it doesn't get any arbitrator input here. If this is adopted in either of the above forms then the committee will instruct the clerks to make any necessary changes to their procedures at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As for input from an arb, I'm not sure how a formal proposal for something like this would work in practice. Perhaps it might be worth looking back at previous cases where a desysop was made - are there any that no alternative was proposed? The proposal was tailored to areas spotted in the case, it would not be appropriate for every desysop case. I'm not against the idea, I just don't see how it could work. Worm^TT(talk) 21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not how userrights are typically removed from non-Admins by Admins. From what I've seen the Admin yanks the right completely and then defends their action at all cost when the user objects. The carefully structured restrictions afforded this admin, along with the lack of any admonishment of the three Admins that tried to shut down discussion of their actions, against a finding that GiantSnowman can't be trusted with access to various Admin tools kind of proves the point that Admins are more equal than other users in the amount of leeway they are afforded. I'm against enshrining the idea of restricting an Admin's actions as an alternative to tool removal into ArbComm policy unless similar process is put in place for any advanced perm removal. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's an OTHERSTUFF argument, but can we save the arguments for when/where it's formally proposed? I don't expect the idea to be unopposed. I'd just like it aired. FWIW, I care about Wikipedians. Newbies, experienced ones, content contributors, gnomes, admins and those with advanced permissions. They are our most precious resource and I think we need to do all we can to retain them. All of them. I'd support any measure that does this and oppose vigorously the opposite, hence my strong opposition to the proposals to tighten the automatic desysop of inactive admins. They are solutions to a non-existent problem. Worse, they are making worse an existing problem. --10:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweller (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'd have a hard time with any kind of rigid requirement to always do X along with Y. I think flexibility is important for a group that already has a reputation for being bureaucratic and inflexible. There are other reasons not to go for this idea - for example, having a specific rule about desysoppings further reinforces the view that it's some kind of punishment or demotion or personal judgment when it doesn't really have to mean anything other than "this particular job isn't a good fit for you right now". But we don't need to get into the politics of adminship; I wouldn't want a blanket rule for bans or other user-rights removals or any other semi-common remedy either. Doesn't mean it wouldn't get considered when the context fit, but I don't like fixed rules when they aren't necessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Original announcement