Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
What this page is for:
This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:
To request arbitration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Shortcuts
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Arbitration motion regarding Geschichte[edit]

Original announcement
Quick clarification L235, by "If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped." do you mean that in three months, Geschichte will be desysopped? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheresNoTime: Geschichte is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case, which opened in a suspended status today. If he doesn't request that the case be unsuspended, then the desysop becomes permanent in three months. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 05:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ah, the user rights script still shows "Geschichte (A)", didn't realise they'd already been desysopped :-) -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you may be relying on something like User:Amalthea (bot)/userhighlighter.js/sysop.js; the maintainer for that has been inactive for a while, some of the intadmins update it periodically. You might want to try something like navigation popups instead, which doesn't rely on a manual list. — xaosflux Talk 14:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I use User:Mdaniels5757/markAdmins, which is somewhat more regularly updated 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 14:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might also want to try this version of markAdmins on testwiki.wiki, it's recently been modified to not require manual updating. (NOTE: it's not working on Wikipedia, maybe someone could port it over?) —GMX(on the go!) 16:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better solution when an administrator is violating policy by ignoring an arbitration request is to just indef-block them. Admins block users all the time for refusing to communicate. Sample motion: "Geschichte is indefinitely blocked for failure to communicate as required by the accountability requirements stated in the Administrators policy. The only requests for unblock that will be accepted are (1) for the sole purpose of communicating at the reinstated request/case until its conclusion, or (2) resignation of the tools. If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped (only regaining the tools via a successful RfA) and remain blocked; any request for unblock thereafter that contains a clear statement that they understand that communication is required may be granted." If such a proposed motion doesn't motivate them to start communicating at the arbitration request, then nothing will.

Don't open a placeholder case that probably won't go anywhere, don't waste time worrying about nonsense like "incentivizing admins to participate" and "motivation" and "psychological effects", just block and move on. This would actually sanction them for obvious misconduct, and not just procedurally remove access to tools that requires no acknowledgment on their part to rejoin the community. If someone (especially an admin) is not sufficiently motivated to follow policy and communicate after being called before ARBCOM, then they should be forcefully shown the door. The current situation, where an administrator is de-sysopped but otherwise free to go about their business, leaves the rest of us still wondering whether they actually understand policy at all. And it gives the appearance of treating admins differently from regular users for the same crime.

Or maybe just throw it back to the community where it probably belongs: "Hey, ANI, you're perfectly capable of coming to a consensus on whether to block someone for failure to communicate, even if that person is an admin. You don't need us." And then, if the block happens, and is not successfully appealed within three months, there could be an automatic trigger in policy or a procedural ArbCom request to permanently de-sysop a blocked admin. Modulus12 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. We don't indef people over single incidents unless their far more egregious than "made an involved block". * Pppery * it has begun... 01:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Pppery said. Removing the admin bit isn't punishment, it is removing risk to the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking for punishment. I just don't see the fairness in Geschichte being able to freely edit for 85 days and then come back here to open a case to argue for his tools back. The WP:ADMINACCT refusal-to-communicate violation of policy is indisputable, right? What is the sanction for that? Why can't we apply that sanction right now? Is a de-sysop the sanction, but only three months from now? Or is the de-sysop always just a procedural thing to "remove risk" and creates no negative implication of wrongdoing? If Geschichte is still an admin (temporarily lacking access to the tools), then he should not be doing anything on this Wikipedia until he answers to the questions about his behavior in this arbitration request. If Geschichte is not an admin and not bound by the Administrators policy, then he should be permanently de-sysopped right now, not three months from now. Modulus12 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's not an admin now. There exists a small chance he could become one, either by successfully taking part in the Arb case, or by a successful RFA, but he is not an admin. When I voluntarily give up my admin bit (something I've done a few times), I am not an admin. I'm eligible to become one again, but without the bits, you aren't an admin. I suppose the clothes make the man, you could say. For all intent and purposes, he is permanently desysopped, for while there exists a sliver of a chance he could regain it, it's pretty clear it won't happen. In the end I asked them to just permanently desysop, but they chose this route, so I have to respect it. It is a reasonable conclusion, just not my first choice. Actually, my first choice would be he comes back, admits a cranial rectal inversion problem, and is convincing enough to regain the bits. It just isn't likely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get the admin tools back without an RfA, then I would argue you are still an admin for accountability purposes. (Or, it ideally should work that way.) If, during some period of lacking the tools (wikibreak or inactivity or whatever) someone discovers questionable actions in your history, then I would think that should be the first order of business when you start editing again. You shouldn't be able to just ignore it until some arbitrary time in the future when you want to request your bit back. I don't think we want pseudo-admins running around as regular editors when their understanding of policy is questionable. In the end I asked them to just permanently desysop, but they chose this route, so I have to respect it. I don't know if it's the rules or the culture, but it seems strange that the community can't block an admin at ANI when there's apparently a unanimous belief that they are failing WP:ADMINACCT. I don't think there was a single person defending Geschichte's pretend-this-isn't-happening strategy. Modulus12 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin ARE regular editors. When editing, the standard of conduct is more or less the same, although an admin is (should be) given less leeway simply because they should know better than violate policy, versus a newer editor, for example. Btw, when I give up my admin bit temporarily, WP:ADMINACCT doesn't actually apply to me directly. That is for accountability for things done with the admin bit, or in your capacity as admin, things a non-admin can't do. For instance, I regularly patrol and work WP:AE, but if I turn in my bit, I can not post in the "admin" section. Same for SPI. Same for AN3, for that matter. Without the bit, you aren't an admin, even if you are eligible to be one. I could close an AFD as "keep" (the same as any experienced editor) but I couldn't close it as "delete" without the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Modulus12 - ADMINACCT, unsurprisingly, relates to admin activity. Editors (admins or not) don't have the same obligation to explain themselves with regards to (for example) an article edit. Indefinite blocks are not a sanction that corresponds to ADMINACCT breaches.
We only block people for non-communication when there's an ongoing problem that requires communication to resolve. So had Geschite kept doing this, and Arbcom not removed their ability to do so (neither of which is the case) then the Community could block in an equivalent way. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Communication is required, which does apply to all editors, even admin/editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear, I think there is still an ongoing problem that requires communication to resolve; there's an ArbCom case where Geschichte is free to restart the drama any time he chooses in the next three months and maybe get his tools back. If we're extending that privilege to admins with ANI flu, then I think it should be combined with an indef-block because they shouldn't be doing anything else until it's resolved. Call it a "procedural" indef-block if you want. Although it's really not procedural in this case, which is why I think the block should remain until Geschichte acknowledges why it occurred. The current motion doesn't actually say Geschichte did anything wrong. Modulus12 (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking an admin that refuses to be held accountable at ANI? I'm not opposed to the idea, and I could have simply blocked Geschichte instead of taking him to Arb, but I felt Arb would be more effective. Of the two, he probably thinks he would have been better off had I just blocked him. The only problem is that it is tricky to block an admin for doing "nothing" (failing to comply with WP:ADMINACCT). If they do "something" that is blockworthy, they have been blocked before, although very rare. There is no current "bright line" for admin failure, so it's kind of complicated as to what constitutes "having the flu" and "obviously doesn't have the flu". Geschichte went back to editing, which proved he was able to participate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be a week or two. Any admin called to account who doesn't answer in a week or two, and doesn't ask for an extension, should be summarily desysopped for failing to comply with ADMINACCT. No suspended cases, no trying to encourage participation, just start the timer. Extensions should be freely granted, but this three months suspended case standard is stupidly long.
    Alternatively, any editor taken to arbcom should get the chance for the same three-month "I can keep editing and answer arbcom later" delay. Levivich 20:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what your counterpart to the (currently) temporary desysopping would be in regard to cases regarding someone's ability to keep editing the project, rather than with regard to their ability to keep "admining the project" Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine I move-warred using page-mover perm, then ignored questions on my user talk page, the ignored an ANI thread about it, and the consequence is I can keep editing but my page mover is suspended for 3 months, and I can resume the discussion about my use of page mover, with a panel of 15 or so admins, at any time in that three month period, and then the panel will decide whether it's reinstated. Idk if that seems ridiculously lenient and a waste of editor time to you but it does to me, and it doesn't matter what the perm is: page mover, rollback, template editor, admin, CU, etc. Levivich 04:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The three month thing is new, and vastly superior to what we were doing before. I would expect it will get fine tuned over the next few years, so I'm pretty patient with it, even when I disagree. The old solution was "Well, we can have a case in absentia, which isn't fair, or we can do nothing" so they usually did nothing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree but take it further: 1-2 weeks > 3 months > nothing. Levivich 04:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An admin is a user with access to the tools. A number of admins run two accounts - one with the tools, one without for when they are travelling and/or using public computers. During the time an admin is travelling and using their non-admin account they are still an admin - there may be a delay in them getting to their tool kit, but they are still an admin. An admin in good standing who asks for the tools to be removed (or they are removed for inactivity) can still get access to them after a 24 hour wait, so they are essentially no different to an admin who is travelling. Indeed, they may even be able to access the tools quicker than an admin who is away from home perhaps unable to even access the internet. When Worm was an ArbCom candidate in 2017, and he had resigned the tools, I don't think anybody who voted for him seriously thought he wasn't an admin - he was in good standing and simply had to ask for the tools back, which he eventually did. He was purposefully making a stand as a non-admin candidate to focus on the issue, but it kinda didn't work because he wasn't really a non-admin.
In this situation Geschichte is not an admin because he has been suspended. He has no access to the tools, and he cannot get them back by simply asking. He can only get the tools back by going through an ArbCom case and satisfactorily addressing concerns about his conduct, or going through a successful RfA.
I think the essential difference between an admin and a non-admin is that an admin has no policy-based impediment to them gaining access to the tools if they require them. SilkTork (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Supreme Deliciousness[edit]

Original announcement

MustafaO unblocked[edit]

Original announcement
  • MustafaO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • I just want to note that I opposed this unblock. One of the reasons is that I think ArbCom shouldn't unban a 3X-banned user (or any CBAN'd user) unless the ban was incorrect on the merits. ROPE unblocks of CBAN'd/3X-banned users should be done by the community, not ArbCom (though we can facilitate such a discussion by lifting the checkuserblock part of the block, leaving the CBAN part). If the community wants to change that, that's fine, but the policy as it stands says 3X bans "are subject to the same unban conditions as users banned by community discussion" (WP:3X), and CBANs are reviewable by ArbCom "where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure" (WP:UNBAN) and notably not for ROPE or other reasons. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think I ended up as a decline though I let my vote be squishy so maybe it was counted for something else. In terms of 3X I had been on that line of thought until CaptainEek did the deep dive into the RfC which created that rule and showed that the understanding at that time was not to take ArbCom appeals out of the picture by passing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also note that I voted to decline the appeal on the merits. But I disagree with Kevin re:3X. The short version is: my research shows that 3X was intended to prevent an individual CU from taking unilateral action, not to add an extra layer of bureaucracy onto an already bureaucracy filled ArbCom. That of course doesn't stop us from asking the community when appropriate. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm apparently not seeing what you're seeing, Eek. There's a sidebar in the 2018 RfC about this (brought up by BU Rob13's oppose), but I do not think there is a clear consensus for your interpretation, and it's certainly not present in the current wording of 3X. I could support ArbCom reversing 3X due to a reversal of the CU block on its merits' (that is, the CU blocks involved were inherently faulty for some reason or another, which I would consider analogous to appealing a CBAN to arbcom where there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure), but I can't agree with this, and if you all plan to do this again, "the community recommends that the Arbitration Committee more wholly discuss (via a well-publicized request for comments) modifying or clarifying 3X". SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 20:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC) SubjectiveNotability[reply]
    @GeneralNotability Here's an amended version of what I wrote up on the ArbList, which is a bit more nuanced than my above statement (please note the tone is sharper and less refined than I would otherwise write with on-Wiki, I hope you will overlook that in the interest of transparency and please don't twist my words): I asked around in the Discord, and read through the thread that led to 3X being implemented about 3 or 4 years ago. Only one person in the thread brought up ArbCom, in the context of bureaucracy. If the community had wanted to restrain ArbCom, I'd have expected many folks to talk about that, so the fact that nobody but BURob mentioned it makes me think it wasn't the community's intent. @TonyBallioni (who was the proposer) indicated that 3X effectively wouldn't apply to ArbCom and that it would be a non-issue. He seemed to be of the opinion that 3X was just to prevent individual CU's from unblocking, and to send a strong message to socks. Is that what the community feels now? There was some amusing discussion about statutory interpretation with the Discordites, but I didn't get any clear answers. We could ostensibly interpret policy to mean that we can do with 3X blocks as we please; I think that bears truth based on Tony's "legislative intent". Ultimately though, we may need some kind of clarifying RFC, unless we want to just keep punting to the community.
    If the community wishes to be consulted on all 3X blocks, there are some issues. First, we need a better way to keep track of 3X blocks. Perhaps the blocking CU on the third occasion should be labelling blocks as such in the log? Second, we need to clarify the criteria. For example, does each additional sockpuppet count as one "occasion" or does just each time they get caught? What if I catch two of their socks this morning, and catch three more later today because I took a break from CU'ing? Is that one or two occasions? Third, we should rethink the CU appeal route. If editors must secure ArbCom and the Community's permission, that creates a lot of bureaucracy, because most socks fall under 3X. At that point, the community is close to saying that it would like to handle all CU unblocks. I don't think I would complain, we spend hundreds of manhours a month on CU appeals. But does the community really want to take that on? Or is the community instead saying that there is no way for socks to ever return short of perfection? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't object to the unblock, but as others have said, let's straighten out the policy. My comment is this: as a checkuser who has dealt with a number of sock investigations in this sock-infested area, including this particular user, I would have expected a little more consultation. I don't mean that I demand ArbCom gets my approval for an unblock, but I probably know some things that you probably don't. Due diligence and all that. Maybe I just missed the email. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt I fully understand the true intent behind ArbCom members expressing their minority opposition to a decision (I can't help but think that it's partly to distance themselves from a potentially unpopular decision to minimize its impact on their next election?), but perhaps this would be an argument for the committee to do more of its work on-wiki, in plain sight, so that any interested person can read the discussion and understand the nuance of each arbitrator's position. If that were the case, then these kinds of "dissenting opinion" posts would become unnecessary. To be honest, I'd prefer either public deliberations whenever possible, or that the committee acts as a unified body and presents its decisions to the community without individual members expressing how they voted. We realize that most decisions are unlikely to be unanimous, but it seems a bit unfair for one member of the committee to express their opposition when other members aren't given an opportunity to express their support. (And if we did provide a venue for all committee members to express their opinion on every decision, then how would that be much different than just conducting the conversation on-wiki?) I understand that some decisions require the examination of private/sensitive evidence that cannot be posted publicly, but for all other cases: either be fully transparent or don't be transparent at all. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One possible way to address this would be for the announcements to contain the vote, like 6-3, to indicate how divided the committee was about each incident or how united they were. But this might just prompt questions of how individual arbs voted if people tried to guess so it might not be the best solution. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scotty, I'll answer since I seem to be the one you're referring to. Just to clarify, you think arbs should refrain from publicly posting their positions unless the entire discussion was public, because it's unfair to the other committee members? Happy to be corrected if I'm misunderstanding. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support what Scottywong has said. My preference would be open discussions, failing that, then give the consensus decision and everyone support it, even if they don't agree with it. That's kinda the way consensus operates on Wikipedia. I also understood that what happens in camera on ArbCom is not publicly revealed without consensus agreement. SilkTork (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: I didn't intend to direct my comments at anyone in particular (since multiple arbs had expressed their opinions above), but I suppose you started this discussion so it makes sense. I think you've summarized my position fairly well. If a discussion occurs off-wiki and a decision is made, my opinion is that it would be better for the committee to present that decision to the project in a unified way, rather than each arb individually expressing their support/opposition to the decision. Putting myself in the shoes of an arbitrator that supported the majority opinion to unblock in this case, if I came upon this discussion where several arbs express their disagreement with the decision along with their reasons, I would feel as if I'd need to defend the decision and start providing the reasons why I supported it (since none of that information is available to the public), otherwise the community might start to believe that a poor decision was made. This could lead to a rehashing of the entire discussion on-wiki, which isn't particularly efficient. Or worse, it could lead to fractures within the relationships between various arbs, and reduce their ability to work with one another constructively. In short, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that you can talk about off-wiki discussions here in the same way that you can talk about on-wiki discussions. When you choose to have secret deliberations, the rules change. In my opinion (as someone who has never been an arbitrator and likely never will), the committee should strive to do the vast majority of their work on-wiki with full transparency. In cases where private/sensitive information is involved, some part of those cases will always need to be handled in private. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a reasonable norm to adopt but I don't think it's the norm we do have currently. It's quite normal for us to publish the votes for decisions reached off-wiki, including when the decision is not unanimous (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). Even when the vote is not explicitly published, it is well within the norms for arbitrators to note their opinion; e.g. at this recent discussion, I was in the majority but appreciated the public notes of two arbitrators who expressed their opposition, which I don't at all think was unfair. There are times when we can't have the full discussion on-wiki but we try to be as transparent as possible, and I think that's the right balance to strike and works reasonably well. In this case, I think my note called attention to a real policy question, about 3X, which I think is proper to discuss publicly. But I'm very open to being convinced otherwise, because the effectiveness and collegiality of ArbCom is important to me – let me know if you want to continue this discussion, possibly on my talk page if you prefer. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally appreciate the dissenters noting such, and their reasoning - in fact, I really appreciate it. You're absolutely right, Scotty, that it might cause that reaction from the majority, but I don't think it would become the norm, and transparency often involves a certain degree of inefficiency and is accepted as a fair trade. We want as much transparency as can be achieved with off-wiki ARBCOM decisions, and here, the detail helped kickstart a discussion on Arbcom/3X engagement. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the committee wants to highlight specific matters for clarification in order to kickstart community conversation, that's great. I think it can be helpful (though not always necessary) for it to issue a consolidated statement where it discusses various aspects of its reasoning. However, I don't think it's a good idea for individual arbitrators to freelance opinions appended onto a decision statement. In the interest of moving onto implementing the decision, versus multiple sides continuing to argue their points, if any details on the discussion are released, I feel it is better to present them all at once in a concise manner. isaacl (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it doesn't bother me if some members want to post their individual dissents. I'm not that concerned about process here. I think it's possible to have discussions of decisions that were not unanimous, and not bother with discussions when there is no disagreement. I wouldn't want any Arbs to be made to feel reluctant to speak out when they think it could be informative to the community to do so, and I don't see much value in having to stick to a standard procedure for doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the appeals we handle privately actually lack meaningful contention because the cases are so obvious. (As you might identify, this is not one such case, though the contention was not acrimonious.)
I agree that in general, we should not be discussing how the sausage was made for decisions taken in private. (There are pros and cons to the practice of 'what's said in the room doesn't leave the room', probably some more obvious than others.) Of course, I would love to discuss what my opinion was in this case, but I'll try not to put my foot in my mouth today.
Regarding more public appeals, more recently than not (but starting before the latest tranche), we have started to remove the CUOS portions of the blocks that have standing to be appealed to ArbCom if we come to the conclusion that the CUOS concerns are sorted, and then providing the community the opportunity to take appeals from users. This has a few detractors internally, I think due to the bureaucracy (15 admins should be able to sort out whether a user should be unblocked, I think is the general direction, at the loss of the community getting an opportunity to discuss a user). I know we've talked internally about a broader discussion on whether this is a valuable practice. Izno (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno are these sanctions that, notwithstanding the CUOS aspect, would usually be heard by an individual admin on a user talk page? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so. First we check to see if there's standing (WP:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals + #4 all other unblock appeals avenues exhausted). Users get punted onwiki/to UTRS if not. For #1 (CUOS) appeals, while they occasionally have private components ticking off #2 there (that aren't CU related), I'd say that's more rare than not and that individual admins or checkusers could take the appeal. Izno (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have long been a supporter of the committee being as transparent as possible, but it would be a terrible idea to bring every unblock appeal we get to an on-wiki discussion, due to the sheer volume of appeals. As Izno says above, in most cases four or more arbs will quickly agree that the appeal is without merit and it will be declined. I do also think there is some benefit to having a private email conversation with the blocked or banned user. All that being said, when we do announce something like this, where there was a split decision, those who did not support it have every right to say so, and to explain why. (for the record I took a short break while this was being discussed and therefore did not vote on it at all.) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not have on-Wiki discussions for only those that are likely to be accepted, or some kind of consultation period after it's decided to unblock? Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I presume that this unblock was within policy, I think that it's entirely inappropriate for ArbCom to consider ban and block appeals like this in non-public forums. I really don't understand why the ArbCom unblock process is almost always done in private when most of its comparable business is handled through complex and very public cases. ArbCom should generally also not be in the business of overturning community bans without consultations given that mechanisms for the community to consider whether the ban is still needed exist - for instance, if ArbCom thought that the ban appeal had merit here, why not start a discussion at AN or ANI? I've had some involvement with the problems in this area of editing, and I'm not convinced that ArbCom really understands the implications of what it's just done. As the community doesn't know what assurances the editor provided, this also doesn't inspire confidence. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For starters, even for those users that are likely to be unblocked there are often private aspects of the conversation, and it would not make sense to have half the conversation on-wiki and half the conversation on the email list; the vague "no CU results" that you get a AN or an SPI report would not suffice in determining if someone has actually managed to stay off-wiki, as the specific details need to be discussed. Additionally, we will sometimes need to comment on off-wiki activity (usually things that happened around the time of the block) which would also be inappropriate to mention on-wiki.
      If the Community wants to be in control over 3X and CU unblocks, then by all means get consensus to do so; it would take much work off our plates, and I doubt you would find many Arbs opposed to such a proposal. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give 'em enough rope...[edit]

As I wrote out my above response to GN, I was struck by a further thought that I'd like folk's feedback on. I increasingly get the sense that the community does not want the committee to grant WP:ROPE unblocks. Is my perception correct? If so, why does the community feel this? I'll elaborate by saying that many of our unblocks are ROPE in the sense that it is a second chance. Once in a while we do truly reverse a block because we thought it was wrong, but I can only think of one off the top of my head. Our CU team does a pretty great job :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely an interesting question CaptainEek—I believe I've had two or so of my CU blocks unblocked as a "second chance" (normally accompanied by a "one-account restriction"). It does beg the question as to why this is limited to just ArbCom, as although I see y'all as fully competent functionaries able to evaluate the CheckUser evidence, providing a second chance unblock doesn't really rely on any more private technical data than "just how badly did they sock?". You're all busy enough, so kicking these sorts of things back to the CU team would hopefully reduce your workload a little, and probably speed up the appeal process a little? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleased to see Maxim reach out on the Functionaries list the other day asking for some more background information regarding an arbcom block from several years ago. Consultation of the form of "we've received an unblock request from X, if you are familiar with the circumstances surrounding the block and you know something relevant that you think we might not, please share it with us by email" need not be bureaucratic and is likely to ensure the committee is aware of any strong feelings the community has. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear your positive feedback on that, Thryduulf. When we don't do that, we try to email the CU who made the block to give them a chance to comment if there's a reasonable chance we'll grant the appeal. I'm just worried that if we routinely use functs-en, 70% of the functs-en threads will just be appeals Face-smile.svg. I'll ponder it a bit more. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KevinL: Yes, there will be a balance that needs to be struck between being positively communicative and being negatively overwhelming. Obviously there is no need to ask for feedback about ones that you will definitely not be accepting. Metrics to consider as part of your pondering might be "Is there something potentially ambiguous about the situation that led to the block?", "Would granting the appeal likely be controversial?", "Are we (the arbs) significantly divided over the appeal?" or "Are we finding ourselves trying to read between the lines of a community decision/comment/whatever in order to decide whether to accept or reject?". These may or may not be good metrics but if they aren't at least you/we will know they aren't, which will likely be an aid to working out what metrics would be.
Consultation needn't be restricted to the Functionaries list of course - in a few (likely not many) cases, a (possibly anonymous) that you've received an appeal involving X issue and would be interested in hearing thoughts about it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any appeal that stands a legitimate chance of being accepted takes a fair amount of discussion. Involving a much larger group, for whom there are not clear methods for knowing when a decision is reached (net 4 or majority for ArbCom) is just going to suck up time from a larger group of people and perhaps make decision making harder. If people are interested in these kinds of appeals, I'd encourage them to run for the committee. We could truly benefit from having people excited to do this work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CaptainEek: My understanding is not that people are against ArbCom issuing ROPE unblocks, but that a lot of community members are not comfortable with ArbCom lifting a ban imposed by the community, without community discussion/consultation (unless there are defects identified with the validity of the ban itself); ArbCom can facilitate said community unban discussion (i.e. by letting the banned user request an unban to the community, etc.) The idea that "community bans should be lifted by community consensus" seems to be an understandable position. On the other hand, Arbitrators are also community members, and were specifically elected by the community to represent a narrow, dedicated slice of the community with the purpose of tackling particularly tricky disputes and issues. So the current status quo that "ArbCom can lift community bans without community consultation" does not seem unreasonable either. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • : WP:ROPE may seem like a reasonable course of action in normal circumstances, but in this particular case, given the extensive record of disruptive activity and the lengths to which they'd gone to evade scrutiny, one wonders what it would take to not be offered a second chance. This is especially pertinent here since they have gone through multiple socking accounts already, so in theory, they've had multiple ROPEs. I obviously can not speak for the community, but as someone who has had a fair amount of dealings with this editor either on their SPIs or cleaning the mess after their socks are blocked [1], this just feels like the committee is unloading future work on the community (check users who will be running potential future SPIs, admins who will be dealing with future disruptions, as well as the general population of editors on the project) without consultation with the community. It feels like a decision that can come about relatively easily for the committee, but one whose price is paid for by the community. --Kzl55 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've absolutely no objection to ARBCOM issuing ROPE unblocks for general CUblocks, and I would be a "mild support" for Arbcom being able to directly handle 3X unblocks, including ROPE unblocks, but would like our policy to be amended to match that. I am, however, firmly opposed to ArbCom issuing complete ROPE unblocks in cases where someone has both an ARBCOM block/ban and a (non-3X) CBAN. ArbCom can obviously remove their own sanction, but it should then be sent to community. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the volume concerns can be alleviated by the Committee only requesting consultation from the community if they would consider granting the appeal—that doesn't happen all that often, and I don't think would be an undue burden. If the Committee is relatively clear that the decision is an obvious "no", decline and move on. On the other hand, if there is a lot of dissent about the appeal or the Committee is considering granting it, I think community consultation would generally be in order. It is generally a matter of public record, via an SPI, which accounts were socks of the banned user, and obviously the community would not need to know any private technical details to make the decision—the concern there is behavior, and presumably at that point ArbCom has decided that there is no reasonable question of the accuracy of the CheckUser findings. (Obviously, if ArbCom decides that the CheckUser findings were inaccurate and the editor in question was erroneously accused of socking, they should just lift the ban outright as invalid to begin with, but to my knowledge that is extremely rare.) At that point, ArbCom could lift the CU portion of the block (after, if possible, consulting with the checkuser who placed it and considering any concerns they may have based upon private data), and open a community discussion in regards to whether the community ban should also be lifted, and if so with what if any restrictions in place. That discussion could, of course, include a statement from the banned editor which they have agreed to having made public. But it should be an exceedingly rare occurrence for ArbCom to modify or remove a community-based sanction, and I do not think doing so simply for a "second chance" is appropriate. That decision should be left to the community, regardless of how the CBAN came to be placed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other restrictions still in force?[edit]

It appears from the block log that MustafaO was 3 strikes banned as a result of SPI's into Middayexpress. I can't tell if those SPI's definitively identified the former as a sock of the latter but if so, would that not mean that MustafaO is still topic banned from Somalia-related topics? Apologies in advance to both editors and the committee if I've confused or misinterpreted anything. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a restriction is not lifted then it is still in force -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I guess I really should have been more direct with my question and I apologize for not doing so. The real question is: Are the Middayexpress account and the MustafaO account operated by the same person? If yes, then it appears the outstanding restrictions placed on the former still incumbent on the latter. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220329173657/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard

Leave a Reply