How is it that an administrator can make a demonstrably poor block at WP:AE and disappear, forcing the 'defendant' to wade through an overly bureaucratic appeals process? (Dangerous Panda has not responded to an email sent by Lecen) Relevant links:

• User talk:Lecen
• Special:Contributions/DangerousPanda/Special:Contributions/EatsShootsAndLeaves (note: this administrator was formerly known as (Redacted) has a checkered history with blocking editors)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lecen: upon expanding this, you'll note that Dangerous Panda blocked Lecen for comments he made in error (they were on wrong page; he was, I assume, planning to go to WP:ARCA instead). Lecen removed them as soon as he realized the mistake, hours before Dangerous Panda implemented the block. This was a punitive block, and we don't hand those out for very good reasons. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at that thread since Sandstein suggested the block, and I'm not a fan of Lecen's attitude—I think he over-personalises things and needlessly inflames situations, which I suspect is how he ended up subject to an arbitration remedy in the first place—but having just had a look, I agree this was a poor block. The block came roughly 27 hours after Lecen removed the comment that was ostensibly the reason for it. Unfortunately, no other administrator can overturn the block without losing their bit. I recommend Lecen appeal to ArbCom if discussion with the blocking admin hasn't made any progress, though accusing DP of a "block and run" seems unfair, given that he did respond to you on Lecen's talk page and Lecen hasn't appealed on-wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice job, poisoning the well... "checkered history with blocking editors"? I'd say "fuck you, that's inappropriate", but I think that goes without saying ... and someone might suggest I was being uncivil. "Disappear"? When did I disappear? I stopped engaging The ed because of the ABF attacks and bullshit - doesn't mean I disappeared. The ed's done more harm than good in this situation - I'm in communication with Lecen, and I'm sure something could be worked out if The ed shuts the fuck up, or at least tones down the disgusting rhetoric the panda ₯’ 15:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Pardon the expression, DP, but that's bullshit and you know it. You blocked and ran away for ten hours, only coming back to Wikipedia and commenting after I posted here.[1][2] You also didn't respond to an email sent by Lecen almost immediately after the block for several hours, leaving him completely in the lurch.

You say ABF, I say you've made a terrible block.

@HJ Mitchell: Over-personalizing is an issue with Lecen, but he's also been closely watched and followed by several different editors over of several years. I'd probably be a bit irritable too. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically, this is not the correct location, but since we are here... DangerousPanda can you post here when you've sorted things out with Lecen. Hopefully, given the circumstances pointed out here, that won't take too long. Best for everyone else to hold back on escalating things for now. Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Nothing, of course, has happened. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@The ed17: Are you privy to off-wiki communication between DangerousPanda and Lecen? If not, how do you know whether anything has happened or not? Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

[3] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The block log does not show whether DangerousPanda and Lecen are or are not communicating off-wiki about this. They both have lives outside Wikipedia, may be in different timezones (afaics Lecen has not made their real-world location public), and other reasons may mean that things are progressing slower than you would like - especially if one has asked the other questions they need to think about before responding to. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, please assume good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I think you should unblock. As I've aid above, the comment that the block was supposed to be in response to was removed long before the block. I don't doubt our good faith and also as I said above, I think Ed's "block and run" allegation is unfair, but I think the block is, at best, unduly punitive (not a criticism of your personally: we've all made a few dodgy blocks at one time or another, and that certainly includes me) and all the more so the longer it stays in place. @Carcharoth: I think it might be time for ArbCom to step in here; if everybody sits on their hands until this misjudged block expires just because of the absurd bureaucracy surrounding AE blocks, then ArbCom has made mockery of its own system. @The ed17: I don't think your participation here is helping to resolve the situation. Perhaps you could take a step back now that you've started a discussion? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom is not required -- a consensus at AN or AE can overturn an enforcement block Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications NE Ent 01:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Like my Thanksgiving turkey yesterday, I'm pleasantly being only slightly roasted here - (oh, The ed, remember: I retired a specific username due to privacy issues - repeating it twice here is conduct unbecoming an admin, and unnecessarily raised my anger - congratulations). As everyone CAN indeed tell by Lecen's own comments at their talkpage, not only have they and I been in extensive email contact, but they're also following the farce right here on this page. Indeed, not only are they following it, they've become emboldened by The ed's lack of good faith, incivility, and incredible ability to read my mind (last bit=sarcasm). One must remember that this is now MULTIPLE times than Lecen mas made frivilous filings against another editor. It should be clearly noted that at one point, Lecen did indeed likely have sufficient reason for concern - hence the original ArbCom response. However, in the months since, Lecen has gone beyond, and used that ArbCom decision as a blunt weapon, falsely crying foul numerous times. The community advised in previous situations that it would not accept such future filings. Their filings had become a form of harassment, and they knew that.

Now, on to my extensive communication with Lecen - the goal of which was indeed to see this block lifted so that everyone could go back to editing, and indeed editing without fear of harassment. In those emails, Lecen was simply asked to promise one thing: live by the IBAN indefinitely - take one specific editor completely off their radar; permanently. Lecen's responses including asking why I hadn't blocked 2 other people based on the AE report (huh? Those people weren't even parties to the AE report!). At no time during the email exchange did Lecen accept responsibility for their actions, and they refused to live by the IBAN. He then became insulting. Not long after that, he read my response to The ed above, and began futher insults. He then stated that he wished the block to remain in place. I gave him a day to reconsider his thinking, to no avail the panda ₯’ 09:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, what appears to have happened here is a good reason why a blocked editor appealing to the original blocking administrator sometimes makes things worse, and why there are systems in place to ensure that appeals can be made to someone other than the original blocking administrator. You engaging in e-mail conversation with Lecen and giving secondhand reporting of what he is saying doesn't really help - we have no way to verify any of this. If Lecen were to make a calm appeal to another adminstrator, or to ArbCom, maybe this could be resolved. Your statement that he was insulting to you could be taken into account, but I see poor conduct here on your part as well. You have not responded to the points made above that Lecen removed the text before the block was imposed. If the block expires before this can be resolved, ArbCom may have to take a closer look at what happened here on both sides. My personal view is that the whole case may need to be reopened, as this has kept coming back to AE too many times (as Sandstein noted at the AE report). One thing ArbCom could usefully do here is not only look at the conduct of those reported at AE, but also at whether the AE admins and others commenting at the AE reports helped or made things worse. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As I've been mentioned here: I agree that the block was no longer necessary at the time it was made because Lecen had already removed the comments that were the reason for my suggesting the block. However, the established appeals procedures must be followed in order to review this block, and I think that it is disruptive to start confrontational discussions about the block outside these procedures. Because an appeal may only be made by the blocked user themselves, and Lecen has apparently declined to do so, there is in my view no need for anybody to do or discuss anything related to this block. As to the merits of the case, as I said at AE, the interaction ban does not seem to work well, but any further ArbCom action would require, in my view, an interested editor's request to the Committee.  Sandstein  06:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein is correct. I suggest anyone wanting to take this further open a formal WP:ARCA request. It is clear that Lecen, for whatever reason, chose to correspond with DP by e-mail, rather than initiate the formal appeals process (or did DP send the first e-mail?). One thing that any administrator informally corresponding with a blocked editor by e-mail must make clear is that they (the blocking administrator) are not the final point of appeal and that the blocked editor always has the right to initiate a formal appeal. In theory, DP's approach of trying to sort it by e-mail and setting out some conditions sounds right, but I think the potential for it to go wrong with no transparency about what happened (the situation we have ended up in) is not good. So a transparent on-wiki appeal on the user's talk page, transferred to the appropriate venue, is almost always better. Sandstein, as someone active at AE, can I ask if it is common for you, for instance, to correspond by e-mail with those you have blocked as an AE action? Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I occasionally receive e-mails related to admin actions, including AE actions, but to preserve my privacy and for transparency reasons, I prefer to reply to these e-mails on the user's talk page. I normally respond to any complaints about the admin action as an appeal against this action, and indicate whether and, if not, why I won't modify the admin action. If the complaints indicate that the sanctioned user is unclear about the appeals procedure, I also inform them about the further venues of appeal, but otherwise I consider that the templated information ({{uw-aeblock}}, {{AE sanction}}) they received on the occasion of the sanction provides all the information they need to make further appeals, should they desire to do so.  Sandstein  09:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Carcharoth: Looks like I was "damned if I do, damned if I don't", doesn't it? I was roasted by my colleague above for not responding to Lecen's email - I had not replied because I too prefer on-Wiki conversations. However, the other admin was apparently aware that Lecen had emailed me, so I was pressured into responding using that forum. In terms of supposed "poor behaviour" on my part, I'm going to disagree that I was "alone" on this block. There was general consensus that some form of action needed to be taken. I had suggested a month. Sandstein suggested a week. Nobody else commented - I even left the case open for a significant period of time, then acted on the discussion. It's someone else's ABF on this whole thing that escalated things, so please be cautious with those kinds of things the panda ₯’ 09:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Adding Let me also add something vital here: my understanding of the AE board is that it does, indeed, operate very differently from say ANI/AIV/AN3RR. Those boards are intended to deal with immediate situation. If you liken it to the police, it's like having a cop with a radar on the highway: you're stopping something in motion. If it's stale, we typically do not act on those boards. If someone phones the cops saying "hey, 3 hours ago, I saw a guy speeding", the police may drop by and chat, but no charges will be laid. From what I see, AE is very different - it's more like having photo radar, or red light cameras: if we see you've broken the policy, we'll mail you a ticket that's just as valid as if it was disbursed at the time of the incident. ANI, etc are instantaneous - you try and perform the preventative action ASAP to prevent it from going stale. AE can indeed take days to decide, and thus staleness is inherent. As well, it does look at all behavior related to the enforceable aspects, even if it's been "undone" by the original editor. Based on the above, and based on my understanding of the AE process, it doesn't matter that someone had removed their post, the post itself warranted action.

You may indeed correct me if I am wrong with this interpretation - although I monitor and comment at AE, it is extremely rare that I implement. I took action based on the precedents that I have seen and reviewed. If I'm wrong on these interpretations, let me know - but so far, what I'm seeing above is 180 degrees contrary to the precedents of the AE board. If I'm wrong, I will indeed reverse - but show me where I'm wrong, don't just make emotional accusations. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My view at the moment is that things went wrong here at two points. Firstly when you enacted the block without a clear consensus. Lecen should at that point have followed the appeals process and filled in the template provided at the links. That would have effectively restarted the AE discusion and a different result might have occurred, and the actual underlying issues might have been resolved (you know, what the AE request was actually about - read the statements by Wee Curry Monster and others). The second failure point was when you and Lecen started trying to sort this by e-mail and you both clearly failed to communicate without things degenerating into an argument. At that point, you should have handed off the appeal and told Lecen to take it to the next level. Overall, things are such a mess now that it would be best taken straight to WP:ARCA to see if it can be untangled there. To those that brought it here (WT:AC), you should also have gone straight to WP:ARCA. Finally, what would probably solve a lot of this would be to ban those parties to this case that are under an interaction ban from even mentioning the arbitration case. You really don't need to be able to refer to an arbitration case to just get on with normal editing. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

First, let me apologize to DP—I got a bit hotheaded here, and using your former username was not a conscious attempt to disparage or anger you. Second, Carcharoth, it would be good to codify this somewhere. How am I supposed to know to go to ARCA? AE says that ARCA is to be used to "appeal Arbitration Committee decisions". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA is mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Appeals. You are meant to first appeal to the blocking admin, then to AE or AN, and the final stage is WP:ARCA. You can skip stages, but once you reach WP:ARCA the decision is final. I think the place things broke down here was when Lecen appealed to the blocking admin (over a holiday weekend as well, I think) and things slowed down at that point. It would have been better here to skip that and go to AE or ARCA (maybe AN). It is a fault in the process, I think, that we can't cut through red tape and say "after a set time period, if you've not heard back from the blocking admin, go to the next stage". My estimation is that going through all the stages in the process would take longer than the length of the block, which is a bit silly when you think about it. A review of a block should be done before the block expires. My view is that this is the sort of block that has a fair chance of being lifted on appeal, and something has gone wrong with the process here. Mainly Lecen not knowing or being willing to file a proper appeal in the correct place, and the e-mail exchange between him and the blocking admin making things worse. Carcharoth (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that page existed. It answers pretty much all of the questions I would have had... so why in the world is it not linked from the AE block template? Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Arbitration_enforcement_blocks, which is what the AE template directs blocked users to, mentions only two possibilities: the blocking administrator or BASC. Moreover, it's hard to file an appeal at ARCA while blocked. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Check that, it's mentioned in the quote, but not in the specific instructions for requesting that a block be lifted. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@The ed17: I've updated Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks (and WP:Banning policy) to the current practice.

Though I just want to clarify something based on my experience as an AE regular (ping Sandstein for input), Carcharoth, AE doesn't work by consensus, it is one admin's opinion and action (the 'enforcing admin' who can be anyone) for which they receive input from others. WP:AC/DS makes no provision for consensus and saying that consensus is required sets a potentially dangerous precedent where some reports can't be dealt with quickly or with little input (eg this one). Blocks for example are generally handed out by individual admins without much if any input (eg this one).

@EatsShootsAndLeaves and DangerousPanda: you are correct to an extent. Notwithstanding what I said in the sentence preceding this one, if other admins have said that sanctions aren't necessary or have stated a preference for a lesser sanction, best practice is to go with what they've said. If you disagree you suggest an alternative and get input on it (eg me here) - that's the reason that it can take a while to do things at AE. I'd also say that the implication of the last paragraph in WP:AC/DS#Role of administrators suggests that you should be using an account with admin permissions whenever you are acting in arb enforcement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Well, based on that, it's exactly what I did: I suggested a month, Sandstein suggested a week, I blocked for a week. Discussion that the block was no longer germane didn't occur until post-block, and that was here on this page - nowhere else the panda ₯’ 09:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, you're correct, AE does not work by consensus. Discretionary sanctions are imposed unilaterally, and there is no requirement to wait for or act on any consensus.  Sandstein  11:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, that means that an administrator can place a patently poor block, claim it was necessary as a 'discretionary sanction', and force an editor to go through multiple hoops to be unblocked. That is poor practice which is just ripe for abuse, IMHO. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, but it works that way so that once an admin has sanctioned someone it can't be overturned without discussion. Think about how quickly some of our longer term users have their blocks (etc) overturned without any discussion and you can see why it's there. The disincentive to doing that is (1) it'll be overturned on appeal (which requires the same number of edits from the sanctioned user as appealing normally would, just maybe drawn out a bit and needing to use different templates) very quickly and (2) the proverbial stick is that the Committee reserves the right (as stated at WP:AC/DS to sanction the admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

To take this thread back a moment, consensus is not required at AE, in that any admin can act on their own initiative, and we often do in obvious cases, such as Callan's examples above. But establishing consensus is best practice in controversial cases. Sometimes it might be appropriate to act unilaterally if there is no consensus, but if consensus is against you, you just have to move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc, I'm not arguing that—it's in place for a very good reason. That said, I do think there's a place for officially mandating that admins come to a consensus, or at least a majority, as I can see the possibility of obstinate admins completely destroying AE. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that HJ! I can definitely see what you mean, however there are some users who will never have consensus against them as they have enough 'friends' who will argue loudly, but once there is a topic/interaction ban or block everything calms down again. As I said I can see where you're coming from however I've no doubt that is an admin was abusing the DS system (including at AE) and their sanctions where continually overturned or believed to be inappropriate the Committee would step in. To my knowledge that has never happened, and I doubt that it will as a "clear and substantial consensus" one of your sanctions will give most people pause, especially when the only people who can desysop you have made it clear that they will in these circumstances if you continue. In most cases the two examples above happen. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hence my proposal for a simple majority; if you don't have that, the block is probably too controversial for AE anyway. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Callan: I've never seen a situation where an editor's friends have been able to muddy the waters at AE sufficiently to avert sanctions, because decisions are made by uninvolved admins (who have to explicitly declare themselves as such by editing the relevant section, and can be sanctioned if they behave improperly). The closest I've seen is some of the threads about some of the longer-term participants in the Israel-Palestine area, where dozens of editors have participated and there has sometimes been lengthy discussion among admins, and I can remember one that ended in deadlock, but the discussion was always about the merits of the complaint and the editor's contributions, and never boiled down to personalities or friendships. Note that I'm talking in general terms—this isn't intended as a comment on DP/Lecen. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

...and you highlight well why the "majority" can and never should work on AE. The only concept at play is twofold: "did they break the Arb decision?" and "what is the action to be taken to prevent recidivism, based on the severity and past experience?". the panda ₯’ 20:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

True but the other thing to keep in mind is that AE isn't the only place violations of arb decisions can be discussed (or appealed), AN and ANI (where it's completely possible they may be discussed) have a much wider audience of both admins and non-admin users were it's more likely the waters can be muddied, including just by the different format for discussion used. But as we've both shown AE tends to work by majority or close to majority anyway due to 'best practice'. The other issue with legislating majority rules is the quorum and appeal problems, something imposed 1-0 or 2-0 is very different from something imposed 5-0.

Per the DS procedure the admin who imposed the sanction is able to remove or modify but none of the others can. So now any appeal or modification has to be discussed (by the same or higher majority?) and it's sounding very similar to other sanctions imposed by the community except by admins alone. I have sort of straw man'd it but the situation described above is one which is very likely to happen. The other issue is then who is responsible for the sanction per WP:AC/DS#Role of administrators, WP:AC/DS#Expectations of administrators, and WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications (as discussed above). Having it decided by majority sounds like a really easy change but it would mean rewriting the whole DS procedure. Plus admins would no longer be able to TBAN or block (based on DS) on their own initiative but rather would need to take it to AE, why not just take it to AN and ask the community to act...? Consider enforcing 1RR imposed through discretionary sanctions, (eg at Tony Abbott) rather than a quick block for 24 hours I have to report it at AE wait for someone to agree and then impose it way after the 1RR vio (and if they don't impose it it has to wait for me to get back online, maybe because they don't want to be responsible for it).

The whole basis of the DS system is that it allows admins to deal with issues as they come up rather than there being a need for the community to work it out. The reason for DS being imposed is because the community (including admins) were unable to deal with it. Enforcing a majority rules (even if the quorum is you + one other) means that all discretionary sanctions need to be taken to AE (etc) for discussion which slows down the process and ties up more time (generally another reason they were imposed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• AE can indeed take days to decide, and thus staleness is inherent. This is true, AE is less concerned with staleness than AN or other similar venues; however, this should not be interpreted too mechanically, in my opinion. If an editor does something thinking it was permissible and, when informed it wasn't, he self-reverts, then, again IMO, sanctioning him is inappropriate, because the editor in question made a good-faith error (i.e. he wasn't wilfully violating his restriction) and, when told, tried to fix his mistake; that's what is known as ravvedimento operoso (active repentance) in Italian. Now, if an editor makes a habit of violating his restriction and then saying "sorry, didn't know it wasn't allowed", then by all means block him because he's showing a serious lack of competence, but if it's only a one-off occurrence, then the best solution would be (always IMO), to let him off with a warning to be more careful. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, @Salvio giuliano:, based on this interpretation, I will be unblocking the panda ₯’ 09:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If this incident was a one off, Carcharoth's advice to "hold back on escalating" would be appropriate. Unfortunately, it's not, so I've drafted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DangerousPanda-EatsShootsAndLeaves. NE Ent 16:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ban from mentioning the arbitration case

@Carcharoth: Finally, what would probably solve a lot of this would be to ban those parties to this case that are under an interaction ban from even mentioning the arbitration case. You really don't need to be able to refer to an arbitration case to just get on with normal editing. While that might work in this specific case, I don't think that it is something that should be adopted as a general point. There are legitimate reasons why a sanctioned editor may need to refer to an arbitration case in the context of normal editing, particularly advising another editor who does not appear to be aware of the sanction why they are unable to do something. For example if editor A is topic banned from weather and is asked by editor B to take a look at a newly-expanded article about a settlement in Belize because editor A has previously worked on several Good Articles about cities in Central America. It is reasonable for editor A to explain that they are not able to do any work to the Climate section of the article due to the topic ban imposed in the arbitration case. Similarly if editor A is under an interaction ban with editor C, they should be able to legitimately explain they are unable to partake in an RfC about a similar article because it is about content editor C added to the article and is defending in the RfC. (There are also shades of super injunctions, but I haven't thought through this fully though) Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are officially open. The nomination period runs from Sunday 00:01, 9 November (UTC) until Tuesday 23:59, 18 November (UTC). Editors interested in running should review the eligibility criteria listed at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates then create a candidate page following the instructions there. Mike V • Talk 01:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Can someone remind me which case was amended by motion to have a remedy placing all BLPs ++ under discretionary sanctions? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

OK I got it. WP:NEWBLPBAN All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

It does beg the question, however, why should you have to ask? Given that this affects virtually every single editor on Wikipedia, why wasn't everyone notified prior to this decision? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The current enforcement log is at WP:BLPLOG. There was a special enforcement procedure known as WP:BLPSE, which was enacted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes in 2008. When it was first announced back in 2008 it was controversial. On May 3, 2014 it got replaced by the new system which allows standard discretionary sanctions for BLPs per WP:AC/DS. Lately I think there has been an uptick in use. Judging from WP:BLPLOG, the BLP discretionary sanctions have been used 11 times so far in 2014. Anyone can alert someone to the BLP discretionary sanctions by using {{subst:alert|blp}} as explained at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I only found out about this a few days ago, one of many "just when you think it can't get any worse" moments. The motion was passed ex post facto on a case about footnotes! Being a motion community input was zero. The effect is a policy change. Arbcom does not make policy. Hence my research for an Arbcom election question. Since no-one is standing (except Technical 13) that is rather moot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC).

Looking over a case, I see as an example of what constitutes a majority as (for example) "For this case there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority". That is only a 58.33 percentage majority if its a simple 7-5 straight up vote. The standard to sysop is usually above 70 percentage points and to promote to crat even higher. My point is, if we're going to desysop then shouldn't the committee be expected to also achieve a 70 percentage points super majority? Taking away someone's tools or site banning them is a BIG DEAL. I know I am missing something here, but why are we not seeking a super majority of at least 65 percentage points before we desysop or site ban?--MONGO 04:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Tony (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that removing the tools should be easier than getting them. That way administrators would think twice before going havok with the delicate permissions they hold. Asking for a 70-percent majority between arbs to go through with a desysop will only make dealing with admin misbehaviour even more difficult than what it already is. We don't want that, do we? Now, I could find myself agreeing with you with regards to site bans. I think that site-banning someone is certainly way a bigger deal than losing the tools; I'd rather see myself desysopped than banned. → Call me Hahc21 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes—Hahc's post is much better than my one-worder. Tony (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

7-5 is a simple majority and I feel that is too simple. I don't know what the average passing majority for desysops and site bans has historically been but I'd prefer an 8-4 (based on 12) for desysops and 9-3 for site bans.--MONGO 04:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hahc. Also, the Arbitration Committee is a small group of people and so percentages are not a useful metric in comparison with the tens or hundreds of comments that an RFA may attract. All members of the ArbCom were elected with a majority of support from the community to be fair and impartial when reviewing the evidence. If your actions are such that, after a lengthy and detailed scrutiny of all the evidence presented. a majority of the arbcom feel that desysopping or a site banning is the best for the encyclopaedia then I see no reason to consider that insufficiently strong - especially as the vote is public and arbitrators can and do discuss their reasoning and explain why they feel someone should or should not be desysopped or banned. This is not ANI where any random admin can weigh in with or without reading the evidence (not that any should do the latter of course). Thryduulf (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A 7-5 "vote" in favor of a site ban should never be a sufficient majority to implement such a severe penalty.--MONGO 14:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If a simple majority is needed to elect the President of the United States, I don't see why not. → Call me Hahc21 15:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For that person, it's (only) be president or not. For a user considered to be banned, it's about not being part of the project for quite a length of time, most of the time under a different committee. - I suggest not to ban anybody now, before the elections. - If banning seems needed (which I doubt, I am famous for singing the praises of the banned), leave it to the next committee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As a member of WP:RETENTION, I'd support a change to 2/3 majority. Though, such a change would likely make editors less concerned about the potential of facing Arbcom & that might not be a good thing. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a valid point and my suggestion here isn't intended to make things more difficult for the arbitrators....in fact, I have yet to research if there are any instances of site bans and or desysoppings which are implemented without a super majority vote. The allegory about the percentage needed to become POTUS is a fair one but that didn't apply in 2000. Let's look at it this way...if arbcom is required to present a 8-4 vote for desysoping and 9-3 vote for site bans then it protects them more from fallout since there will be less ambiguity.--MONGO 17:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to get off track, but a simple majority of the electoral college vote, is all that's required to elect the US President & US Vice President ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• The comparison to the U.S. elections fails, and curiously so. In the U.S., you need a simple majority of the electoral college to become president, and need a 2/3rds supermajority to be removed from office. We have the inverse of that here. You need a supermajority to become an administrator, and a (of note: non-bicameral) simple majority to be removed from administrator status. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • True, but the requirements to become President are certainly way much higher than those needed to become an administrator. → Call me Hahc21 19:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • In relative terms, I could argue its more arduous to become an admin than to become a president. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• I can tell you what we're not going to do: change the rules in the middle of a case. We attempted a review of arbcom procedures earlier this year, itbasically died on the vine as it seemed very few users were actually interested in the subject. There may be a similar review next year, that would be a good time to advocate for rules changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Calm down...was not even thinking about a mid-case alteration to policy or guidelines. Perhaps I am completely mistaken and if so that's fine, but thought that my idea may be beneficial to everyone.--MONGO 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The community will do as it damn well pleases. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

We're not going to limit the number of admin slots to 435 and force every admin to fight for the seat every two years ( United States House of Representatives ). Not a reasonable argument / analogy. NE Ent 21:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested: WP:VPR#RfC: Should ArbCom be broken up into smaller boards. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Interested users are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interested users are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Re [4] Concur with specially -> specifically (was actually thinking about changing that myself). I had also originally removed the "Note" intro, but restored it because I think it reads better with it -- indicating a transition from specific content about how the committee handles things to a more general note about email in general. (The can / may wording is a tossup, and although traditional, possibly archaic, American usage would prefer "can" in that context - "can" meaning ability and "may" meaning permission.) NE Ent 15:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing back to "can". I generally don't like "note", even though I occasionally use it, because you wouldn't be saying something if you didn't want someone to note it. I understand that some might think it draws more attention to the comment than without it, but even if that is so, I don't think this particular addition needs extra attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree "Note" is often superfluous but I think it makes sense here to flag the transition. NE Ent 17:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you think of a different transition (although I'm not sure I agree that a transition is needed)?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that no transition is necessary. Regarding the following sentence, I suggest the following wording:

For further information about safeguarding your privacy, see "On privacy" and "How to not get outed on Wikipedia".

isaacl (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Note that", "remember that" and similar phrases are pap, and should be removed unless you want to finger-wave at readers. Tony (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This recent (competent) edit by Tryptofish prompted me to look at WP:FUNC. Since Elen of the Roads has been inactive on en.wiki for over a year, why is she still listed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Because someone forgot to take her off the list when her advanced permissions were revoked back in April. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That was simple, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It was actually slightly complicated. Turns out the list is generated by a rather sophisticated template with numerous sub-lists imbedded in it, but it's fixed now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This has got me thinking about something. In the near future I will not be an arb anymore. I have been a member of the oversight team since 2010. Will I be listed under "former arbitrators" or "advanced permission operators"? Do I have any say in the matter? etc?

I'm going to guess that @Roger Davies: can answer these questions. (he seems to always know all this stuff) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been several resignations in recent months; is the list onwiki up to date? Courcelles is in the same position (at this time, anyway) and was listed under former arbs. Usually those lists are maintained by some clerks (when an arb resigns from the Committee), a few arbs, or a few stewards. --Rschen7754 02:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)