Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-06-28/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation

Cases by lifecycle phase (since last report)
Requested	→	Accepted	Remained open	Closed	Amendments
none		none	none	Medicine	none
	→	Declined
		JzG

Other matters: Anti-harassment RfC

A quiet month for new business

There was only one request for a new case, concerning JzG. Case requested 9 June, declined 15 June.

There are no ongoing cases.

Closed cases

Medicine remedies passed as reported in last month's Arbitration report. Of note community-wide, there is a new discretionary sanctions topic, All discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

Anti-harassment RfC

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC

The RfC is part of the Arbcom–WMF understanding reached in the wake of last year's events covered in The Signpost's "Framgate" series (see September 2019 wrapup). Under discussion are a number of topics that could result in new Arbcom procedures or authority in the following areas:

Private evidence
Fear of retaliation
Opportunity to respond to allegations
Unsubstantiated complaints
Plausible deniability
Arbitration environment
"Unblockables"
Relationship with T&S

The RfC is being carried out in Arbcom's pages and under Arbitration case rules, administered by clerks.

Bbb23 CheckUser revoked

Checkusers contributing to SPI through June 19, 2020

Callanecc (18.7%)

Mz7 (16.6%)

Bbb23 (16.6%)

ST47 (12.4%)

DeltaQuad (9.8%)

TonyBallioni (5.1%)

L235 (3.6%)

Berean Hunter (3.6%)

Alison (2.4%)

All others (11.2%)

Checkusers contributing to SPI, Jan 1 – June 19, 2020 (data)

The Committee announced its unanimous decision (with one recusal) to remove Checkuser privileges from Bbb23 on June 18.

In a discussion around the action, Arbitration Committee member Bradv stated

[A] new account asking a question at the TEAHOUSE, voting on an RFA, editing a contentious topic, or asking for help from an administrator should not be checked simply because they might be a returning user – there must be evidence of some sort of disruption. These are the types of checks that we asked Bbb23 to avoid, which he declined to do.

To review further explanation of the reasons for the decision from Arbcom members Bradv, xeno and Worm That Turned, and the surrounding community discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23.

Bbb23 was one of the most active checkusers at sockpuppet investigations (SPI). Checkuser privileges are required to use technical evidence like IP addresses to determine whether sockpuppetry occurred.

The pie chart was corrected shortly after publication –B

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

28 June 2020 (all comments)

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

<sigh> and so Wikipedia loses another prolific and well-respected admin and editor in Bbb23 who, rather predictably, has decided he no longer wants to volunteer large amounts of his time to the project in any capacity. I haven't followed the case so I can't comment on its merits, though I'm sure arbcom have followed their process and policies diligently. However, Bbb23 has long been a stalwart in the battle to protect Wikipedia from sockpuppets, vandals, spammers, LTAs and assorted other undesirables and it's hard to believe that his departure is a net gain to the project, regardless of his transgressions. Wikipedia seems to have a knack of losing the relatively few volunteers who contribute greatly to the encyclopaedia, which is regrettable. I wish there was a better way. Neiltonks (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, I've learned about that only today. I remember him for uncovering eleven socks in my report, more than I suspected. Hats off in a belated gesture of appreciation... Brandmeister^talk 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bbb23 is a wonderful person who has done an amazing amount of great work. I support the committee 100% in their decision, however. My work in real life deals with an enormous amount of sensitive information. If I did something similar, I would be fired on the spot and it would quite likely result in a felony conviction. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's your Signpost. You can help us.

Home

About