Archives

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

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

When I posted this at WP:AN, one administrator asked me to ask ARBCOM. --Marvellous Spider-Man 04:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Marvellous Spider-Man. This is definitely something that's on our radar. We are nearing the completion of a review of functionary activity levels which should provide us with some information in looking ahead to CUOS2017 and when that might need to occur. Mkdw ^talk 04:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a persistent lack of Clerks and Admins at SPI; having more Checkusers won't necessarily alleviate that backlog. Note there is only one endorsed Checkuser request at the time of me writing this; the remainder require Clerk or Admin assessment.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Ponyo said. Behavioral evaluation is the bulk of SPI work, and we desperately need more attention there. Katie^talk 18:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Checkuser statistics since Mike V's departure have not changed. The total number of checks run prior to Mike V's departure were 4,287 (Sept. 2016), 4,023 (Oct. 2016) and 4,344 (Nov. 2016). The total number of checks run in the last three months were 4,309 (Mar. 2017), 4,327 (Apr. 2017) and 4,382 (May 2017).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin can't endorse for CU, only clerks can. Unless that has changed since I was a clerk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're right, but we are in desperate need of admins to review the cases in "CU completed", "Open", "CU declined" and "Awaiting admin" status, which form the bulk of the SPI cases. It's a pretty draining and soul-crushing endeavour, as you know, and the burn-out rate is high, so I can understand why there is a perpetual shortage of willing and capable persons. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I overstepped and did a small clerk thing in an obvious case, I got my head bit off unnecessarily by a CU. It was just second nature since I had the SPI scripts in Javascript. I stay away completely now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember. I can only speak for myself, but if you ever want to dip your toe back in to help out with some of the admin stuff, I'd certainly appreciate your efforts (though I understand completely why you don't have any desire to return to the SPI arena).--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Ponyo said. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ponyo. More admins and trusted users good at spotting similarities are needed to deal with requests that do not need CUs, or where CUs have already run a check, in my opinion... Those are, IMHO, the areas where we do tend to have backlogs... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, in addition, something could be added to the Administrators' Newsletter requesting for additional support and help. Mkdw ^talk 18:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ponyo and Salvio with a bit more food for thought. The majority of current clerk candidates are not being bold enough. SPI is a place where you learn as you work and they won't gain enough experience if they aren't engaging cases; this is how they will learn who various sockmasters are as well as what to do. I see a minority that are SPI regulars. I vetted the list a few weeks ago and pondered leaving a post along the lines of "please engage in cases so that the clerks and checkusers have more to gauge when reviewing your applications". Some of them need to wake up a bit. My words a few years ago apply to non-admin clerks as much as DoRD's words apply to non-clerk admins, a view that I endorse. Perhaps the checkuser team should leave a message addressing the candidates.

I would also add that some candidates, past and present seem to slow down as if awaiting permission to proceed beyond the gate after they add their name to the list. I would suggest that the placard at the top of this thread be reworded to encourage them to get busy working cases.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

Just confirming that I was made aware of this prior to this action taking place, and have no issue with resigning checkuser per lack of use. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your service as a CU, and SPI clerk before that, Reaper Eternal - I always enjoyed working with you. I'd like to thank Elockid and FloNight for their service, as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• One of the few admins that are willing to take decisions that matter. Congratulations! Capitals00 (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No worries from me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Good luck, GoldenRing! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Just remember that behind every user name is an actual human being. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be aware by now that User:Guido den Broeder, who was unbanned a second time by ArbCom in April of this year, has been just rebanned by community consensus after a WP:AN discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User Roadcreature / Guido den Broeder). Some concern and/or surprise about the unban and lack of communication surrounding it has been expressed there. I also note that Guido den Broeder still denies being the same as the editors blocked in 2015 as being his sockpuppets, and that he claims that you had taken this into consideration at the time of the unban. In general, when people try to get some restriction lifted at AN, denial of previous problems is a major red flag, but I see very little understanding of why he was banned in the first place ("In conclusion, I have yet to see a single diff of any wrongdoing on my part. The same was true in 2009. People just jumped on the bandwagon then, as you are doing now."). If Guido den Broeder told you the same things he told at the AN discussion, then why was an unban granted (and who voted in favour of it)? Fram (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be interested in knowing this too. Although ArbCom was a venue for overturning a community ban until recently, it would stand to reason then when a community ban was being addressed, ArbCom should have communicated with the community when it overturned, and the ban. This was not done, which I feel is a fairly serious oversight on ArbCom's part, one which really ought to be explained. This is especially the case since the community saw fit to re-establish the ban almost immediately that it became aware of it. Such a disconnect between ArbCom and the general community is unusual, and, I would hope, will not be a frequent occurrence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not really their fault. His current ban (which was lifted) was an arbcom ban placed by arbcom. His original community ban was lifted in 2009 by arbcom, (before they rebanned him) because the process at the time was that community bans were appealable to arbcom. Its unfortunate, but its the way the UNBAN policy has evolved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the info, I appreciate your straightening that out for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This thread could have ended here, because the answer is "what OID said". Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you ignore the original questions, yes... My original post ended with "If Guido den Broeder told you the same things he told at the AN discussion, then why was an unban granted (and who voted in favour of it)?", to which "what OID said" was not an answer (nor an attempt to answer these questions, they were a reply to BMK). If that's the reading skill you applied to this unban request, I understand that it was granted. Fram (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why ArbCom members (who are active elsewhere, so not a collective holiday in the sun) didn't respons here so far, but I notice that we have WP:ADMINACCT but not WP:ARBCOMACCT. That you have the right to grant unbans, doesn't mean that you don't have to be accountable for them. Fram (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Opabinia regalis did the unblock [1] and left this message [2], so at a minimum, WP:ADMINACCT applies to the unblock because it requires the admin tools. The community would expect an explanation from any admin, without disclosing private details. BTW, I didn't vote or close at that discussion, so uninvolved here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean, if we get technical, the admin tools were used to enforce an ArbCom decision, so that's the only WP:ADMINACCT needed. As for WP:ARBACCT, I don't think there is any mechanism to compel a response from ArbCom about their privately-discussed decisions (other than your vote in the next elections). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, but as a matter of form, it is good to explain what they can, parts that aren't privacy related. It could be as little as a paragraph or two, and doesn't require minute detail. It is a curious situation and it is reasonable to ask for clarification. The question was asked in good faith, and is reasonable. It would be unreasonable to flatly ignore the request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it would be "best form" for ArbCom to respond, I'm just pointing out they are not bound to do so. Their only "statement" on the matter will perhaps remain the unblock notice. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Everyone and their dog demands an explanation about why their request was declined, or why someone else's request was granted or declined. I would not even put Fram's request and 48-hour follow up for an explanation within our queue of the next ten requests by order of being received. Any expectations that members on the committee should not edit unless all requests have been answered is unrealistic. Additionally, the presumption that any request not answered within 48 hours automatically equates to being "ignored" or skirting accountability is unfounded. The fact that a nearly identical inquiry was asked and answered in April 24, 2017, when the unban occurred, provides contextual background and possible explanation on how it was prioritized in terms of urgency.

For myself, I spend time everyday reviewing ArbCom material. In regards to the sentiment that I (or other members of committee) shouldn't be editing unless there are no outstanding requests or on a "collective holiday in the sun", I find disgusting and in opposition to the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. Yesterday, I took some time to clean up a good article I wrote during my own personal time; outside of the time I already set aside for ArbCom (acknowledging that I signed up for it), and other things in my daily life such as work, family, and so forth. I in no way feel any regret for spending some of my own time doing that when there were still some tasks left in the queue. It is for these reasons, I have to disagree that this request was one hundred percent asked in good faith given the unpleasant assignment of expectations and accusations that were placed alongside it. Mkdw ^talk 22:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps if everyone wasn't so unfailingly snarky and unpleasant every single time when demanding a response, they'd respond quicker? I mean, I guess this looks like sucking up so I get leniency in my own inevitable ArbCom desysop case, but Jesus, it's always like that. That's been my experience in real life: if you're snotty to someone, they're less likely to respond to you really fast. Why should it be different here? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have made something like 25 edits this month, because I'm extremely busy in real life (in a good way!). I haven't even read the re-ban thread yet (though surely, as the unblocking admin, it would have been appropriate to at least notify me...) In the meantime I recommend mulling over the answer you already got two months ago ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the closer of the latest thread - I remember GvB from his original incarnation and the disruption he caused then. Of course there may have been some good reasons why he was unblocked, despite never having (publicly) admitted to any of his previous failings, but I am surprised this was not more widely advertised; because perhaps, just perhaps, he could have been steered back onto a good course before the latest spree of nonsense occurred. Of course, by the time most people were aware, it was too late. Black Kite (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't a voting member on the request but I have looked over the request and responses. The recommendation that notices be placed here at ACN for similar unbans has been made and likely will occur in the future. Other unbans granted by the committee have been posted here, especially ones that denote restrictions, so the practice of doing so should continue for consistency and for other benefits as well. I do see at the time that the editor had some restrictions placed on them: a one account restriction and a topic ban, which to me seems to contemplate the past socking findings and their areas of disruption. It was logged on their user talk page and at ER. I don't see their recent edits as defensible and it's unfortunate that things went the way they did. Unbans are particularly challenging because things like the standard offer and second or third chances, especially when an amount of time has elapsed, must rely on a certain amount of good faith and the word of the editor to return to productive editing. Sometimes they work out and sometimes they don't. Mkdw ^talk 16:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna make it clear that I absolutely don't fault the Committee for considering the appeal and working with the user -- in fact, I strongly commend ArbCom for its openness to rehabilitation, of which I am a strong proponent. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and most times you never know for sure until you try. We can argue the merit of this particular case (or its context w/r/t to annoucement or community discussion or whatever) all day long but not of the principle that rehabilitation attempts are a good thing even when the results sometimes sour into disappointment. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I want to make it absoluetly clear that while I absolutely don't fault the Committee for considering the appeal, I absolutely do fault them for not working with the community on this one, and for granting the unblock despite the clear evidence that the chances of this working out were next to nil, and the chances of this being a waste of time and a shitfest were very high. ArbCom supposedly is chosen for their ability to thoroughly consider tough situations, but I see zero evidence of them making a careful deliberation here and looking at the situation with a critical mind. "We unban because we can and let the community deal with it afterwards" is not what ArbCom has been installed for. Fram (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I also wasn't active in the unblock request, so I'll leave that to someone with more information than I have, but out of curiosity: is posting at ACN the best place for you all when we grant an unban request? I agree that we should be more clear in communicating when we've unbanned someone, and figured while we're discussing it I should make sure that there isn't a more useful area to post (or cross-post) this kind of thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ArbCom decisions usually have a post on WP:AC/N detailing the outcome (and sometimes who votes/recused/inactive, etc?), with a "discuss here" link to WT:AC/N and a cross-post on AN; and past unbans have been "announced" the same way. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, I just wanted to check that that is actually the best practice or if there would be a more helpful place to post/cross-post. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds reasonable to me GorillaWarfare. I think it is impossible for Arbs to always know which are going to be controversial and which aren't, but announcing them at ACN makes it transparent, as some might care to monitor their progress. Knowing the basics is fine, knowing who participated would be nice but not sure we can force that issue. We don't need a blow by blow as to deliberations, but in the event Arb knows it will be controversial, a bit more info would be helpful. This may actually prevent some surprise problems, and remind us that Arb is a part of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• It's true that unbans/unblocks have been a bit scattered - for awhile there was a log at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals, but it fell into disuse for reasons I don't remember. I believe I've always logged unbans that were associated with specific cases, but haven't been consistent about other stuff. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

+1 to everything Mkdw said above. It is not really reasonable to start getting agitated because nobody has replied to a non-urgent question within 48 hours of its asking. Especially when the previous iteration of the same question was already answered in this thread on my talk page from April. (Maybe that was just a forgettable conversation - unless I missed something, Fram didn't mention it here or at AN.) And given that said AN thread was open for under 24 hours and nobody except the soon-to-be-banned subject of the thread troubled themselves to notify the admin who unblocked, the carrying-on here about communication and speed of response is... well, as my mother would say, "that's a bit rich, isn't it?"

As a matter of philosophy, I agree with Salvidrim about the value of second chances. People get older, mellow out, develop new interests and lose old ones.... in considering an unban/unblock/other type of appeal request, I tend to focus on the practical aspects of how the editor wants to contribute in the future. I almost always ask appellants to describe specifically how they plan to contribute and what they intend to do to avoid previous conflicts and trouble areas. I almost never ask someone to "admit their failings", publicly or otherwise. Sometimes their plans work out, sometimes they don't. FWIW, I had a look through my archives and since I've been on the committee, I believe we've unbanned eight editors (excluding BASC residuals in 2016, and routine CU/OS block appeals), of which two were subsequently re-banned.

I do want to return to the point I raised in the first paragraph about the AN thread re-banning Guido. I'm not going to defend his editing, but it makes me cringe to see a poll of ten people that lasted about 13 hours uncritically described as a decision made by "the community" (in bold italics, no less!). Yes, everything on Wikipedia involves self-selected samples, and yes, we're not a bureaucracy, but I really don't like seeing those corners getting cut in cases where there's no particular urgency. An editor who's made a couple hundred edits in two months on a small handful of low-profile topics is not creating an emergency, even if they're being disruptive and unhelpful. For one thing, I have a self-interested reason to object, because (and I'm speaking in general, not about Guido here) editors who are on the receiving end of this kind of treatment then tend to email arbcom about how unfair it all is, procedures weren't followed, I didn't get my day in court, I'm appealing to Jimbo, I'm alerting the press, I'm suing, I'm telling the UN about this gross violation of my human rights, etc etc etc. More importantly, decision-making on the dramaboards is highly inconsistent and rarely critically evaluated - they don't get that name for shits and giggles - and we shouldn't be exacerbating those problems where the situation doesn't warrant it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the thread at that point because it was obviously a simple open and shut case, and would inevitably have resulted in a simple pile-on of votes, which is a both a waste of editors time and unfair to GvB as well. Are you saying that the editors who posted there were wrong? If so, why? I'm a little disturbed by your claim that "decision making on the drama boards is highly inconsistent" - we're here because people think that decision making by ArbCom is highly inconsistent as well... Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours is a good minimum IMO, unless there's something actually urgent happening (and someone making a bunch of comments and being annoying is not urgent).

I think that all levels of Wikipedia dispute resolution suffer from inconsistency and lack of systematic review. There is remarkably little feedback on decision-making processes about what was and wasn't effective in the longer term. A few weeks ago I tried to review a small subset of arbcom remedies - recommendations for community RfCs - and posted it here, because I was prompted by an earlier thread there. Admittedly not the most visible place, but it got no reaction. Too bad. I keep meaning to follow up with other types of remedies, which are much easier to sort out from fairly structured case pages than the mess at AN/ANI. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading what you said here, I took a look (for the first time) at what you posted that had gotten no reaction. To my eyes, a lot of it looks like situations where a decision said something like "the community is encouraged to..." and in some cases the community may have blown it off. I tend to think that, unless ArbCom wants to start mandating RfCs (obviously not likely), that's what you are stuck with, with a volunteer community. But if there's an urgently felt need for an RfC, someone who feels that need probably will start it. So maybe that's information that the community no longer felt that hot and bothered, once the case was decided. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's pretty easy to semi-automatically sort out the remedies, but not so easy to find the RfCs, so mostly I was hoping someone knew of some that I missed. But yeah, that's what I wanted to know - the extent to which these kinds of remedies are actually useful, or whether there are specific types of cases more likely to get follow-up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR (long post by myself removed), simple questions:

• Who in Arbcom voted for or against the unban (plus recusals, inactive, ...)
• Did Guido den Broeder deny the socking?
• Were you aware of his COI editing problems?
• Did he acknowledge any problem at all with his pre-ban editing?
• Did he indicate which topics he wanted to edit?

Shouldn't be too hard... Fram (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ophabinia Regalis--but it makes me cringe to see a poll of ten people....as a decision made by "the community"--Contact the WMF. They will more than gladly accept you on the pay-rolls! Usually, this has been the foundation's standard refuge in denying any result arising out of an en-wiki consensus!Also, I must have blatantly mis-read the snowball clause.And yeah, while I am not seeking any time-frame as such (it's perfectly understandable that many editors are busy in their real life) but I am necessitating my support for proper answer to Fram's questions.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 12:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the mailing list if anyone minds that their support is posted... obviously I supported, but you presumably guessed that. The rest of this is backseat driving. Like I said last time this came up, we didn't just fall off the turnip truck. If the appeal had been "I want to write an article about my micronation!" obviously it would have been declined. He had a one-account restriction he didn't violate, so all this stuff about socking is a distraction. He was topic-banned from articles where poor editing is a serious problem - medical articles matter in ways that differ from most topics, especially micronations and actresses. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I supported. I agree we definitely should have stated publicly that we'd unblocked, and I've suggested we put this in our procedures somewhere. I'm not going to discuss his email for obvious reasons. We decided to offer him another, probably last, chance assuming correctly that if there were problems they would be dealt with (and yes, that would have been easier if it had been announced). As for AN, waiting for 24 hours before making a final decision seems the optimal way to handle AN cases although circumstances can require faster action at times. I don't think this was one of those situations. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Backseat driving"? You have some guts, but you clearly don't know when to shut up. Let's see what a backseat driver is, shall we? "The term is also used allusively for any person who intervenes with advice and instructions in affairs they are not responsible for, or subjects they may not understand well." Considering that I have dealt with GdB for years, was (at least partially) responsible for his RfC and for his first reban and his second reban, I think this is an issue I understand quite well and take responsability for. Anyone may criticize ArbCom actions and communication, that should never be called "backseat driving", but to address it to people who actually know the case (and criticized it from the start of your interference, not only after it ended badly), is especially unwarranted and shows a clear lack of transparency and accountability.

That you need to "ask" whether anyone minds that their support is posted is also quite bewildering. Any ArbCom member who voted in an ArbCom decision but refuses to have his vote made public should immediately resign from ArbCom, as there is no reason at all why such a vote would need to be secret.

Looking back at my questions:

• Who in Arbcom voted for or against the unban (plus recusals, inactive, ...): no answer (collectively)
• Did Guido den Broeder deny the socking? "a distraction"???
• Were you aware of his COI editing problems? No answer
• Did he acknowledge any problem at all with his pre-ban editing? No answer
• Did he indicate which topics he wanted to edit? No answer

But we do now know that you consider poor editing of the BLPs of 11-year old "beautiful girls" not potentialy "a serious problem". You didn't fall of the turnip truck, you were driving it blindfolded, singing "lalala" with your fingers in your ears.

What made you (everyone who supported this) believe that he would this time, after 8 years of problems, suddenly become a productive, useful contributor, if you had no indication of what he would edit and what he would avoid (apart from the very limited topic ban you gave him), how he would avoid the original problems (which he still considers a witchhunt, just like the CU sock block was wrong). None of you have given any indication that you looked for more than 5 minutes at the original ban discussions and took any of it in any way serious. Never mind looking at how he went off the rails since the 2008 blocks, including his 2014 takedown notice to Google for dozens of Wikipedia pages featuring his name[3] (the same name he now used again for his username, now he again needs some publicity), his creation of a "second generation" wiki which happily constantly imports articles from wikipedia without the necessary attribution (e.g. this, his socking, and his creation of a micronation where he is the prince-monarch and which is the gateway to a parallel universe, and which his socks were already promoting on enwiki... Fram (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received substantial support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Milieu 3:

"The balancing COI and privacy/outing means that the only option is that people investigating COI must submit information in private to the relevant people. Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF, but other bodies could be considered if there is consensus for this."

Closing rationale: "There is consensus for the proposal with the obvious caveat, that this approach needs a lot more details and clarification.Many have clarified that other bodies shall only refer to editors who have been vetted by the community to handle sensitive and personally identifying information.There has been concerns about the use of the word only as it seems to nullify on-wiki processes based on CU and behaviorial evidence."

Milieu 4:

"We need to balance privacy provided to those editing in good faith against the requirements of addressing undisclosed paid promotional editing. To do so can be achieved with a private investigation with some release of results publicly to help with the detection of further related accounts. These details may include the name of the Wikipedia editing company with which the account is associated (such as for example the connections drawn here)"

Closing rationale: "There is consensus for the above proposal, with a condition that the proposal must be clarified to remove vaugeness, and that any information released must be limited to "employer, client, and affiliation".

More specifically, the information that is to be clarified is:

1. Who is doing the investigating? (this looks like it's covered by Milieu 3)
2. What information is to be released? The proposer has stated in the discussion below (and other editors agreed) that the information that is released is to be limited to "employer, client, and affiliation". This renders the argument of wp:outing invalid, which really was the only argument brought up on the oppose side.

"

--George Ho (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC); expanded, 00:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho many thanks for the recap. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) I've given more copies of the recap at Meta-wiki's Wikimedia Forum and the Board of Trustees' Noticeboard. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to change header level names at Arbitration Enforcement to say "Defendant" and refer to other Wikipedia users as "Prosecutor" and "special prosecutor", as was done, here DIFF? Sagecandor (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AE is run by admins, not ArbCom or clerks, so I'm not sure why this question was posted here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they posted here, but it's aperfectly terrible idea. AE isn't a court of law. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was a clerks issue. My bad. But thanks for your attention. Sagecandor (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration, and the entire Arb namespace is usually managed by ArbCom or their clerks directly, so it's not unreasonable to ask ArbCom or their clerks about what constitutes an acceptable format, I guess? But yeah, this could really have been asked on AE's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I know for next time, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]