An Arbitration case opened on 18 December with nine arbitrators accepting and zero declining. The request included multiple editors presenting evidence of inappropriate mass rollback with the rollback toolset (bundled for all administrators and held by some non-administrators as well). At issue is interaction between GiantSnowman – an administrator since 2012 with over 300,000 edits – and less experienced and less privileged accounts. Besides what some called immoderate use of rollback, additional concern was expressed about "social damage" (UninvitedCompany) emanating from "blocks of new users who may not know our sourcing rules that is particularly concerning" (DGG). Perhaps the most pointed statement in the request was from Softlavender who opined "This is harming the project (we cannot afford to lose good editors more than we already are), and no one can babysit such an admin to make sure he is competently using the tools and competently reverting." On the other hand, some expressed views that the problematic interactions can be solved through less drastic means, for instance: "[I]t is not clear to me that desysopping GS is going to suddenly fix the issue that differentiating between good and bad changes to sports statistics is difficult. Can we try to work on this issue instead of focusing on people?" (Kusma). The case will be in evidence phase until January 3.
A request Jytdog abruptly they would be leaving Wikipedia for good. In response, Arbcom this motion without a formal case: "Jytdog may not resume editing, under any account name or IP, without notifying and obtaining permission from the Arbitration Committee". Arbcom's opinions in the discussion whether or not to take it ranged from angry-sounding "I don't understand where anyone could come up with the notion that it's ok to call someone out of the blue off-wiki... [s]ome action will have to be taken here" (DeltaQuad) to more conciliatory. Notwithstanding the 10–0 vote to take the case, arbitrator DGG stood his ground on the motion saying that "I oppose a block as unnecessary and inappropriate. But saying 'without notifying and obtaining permission from the Arbitration Committee' is in fact a block–an indefinite block."on November 27 appeared to possibly be rendered moot when
The Signpost notes that not all members of the committee agreed that the off-wiki communication had been initiated by Jytdog without the consent of the other party. This would surely have been the crux of a case, and there are hints that there is private communication available to the committee that contradicts the record the rest of us can see.
A case was BU Rob13. An editor had on this request in the last issue of The Signpost as a case of the foxes guarding the henhouse, while rebuking us for not covering it in that issue's Arbitration Report.on December 8 regarding Arbitration Committee member
The Electoral Commission made an his candidacy for Arbcom. It also stands as an unusual case (unprecedented as far as we know) of a candidate being admonished and desysopped for editwarring on their own candidacy page.during
All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the checkuser and oversight permissions.
We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2018:
Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect: